Tenth Amendment Explained (U.S. Constitution Simplified)

In this video, Mr. Droste explains the meaning of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In discussing the 10th Amendment, Mr. Droste covers the idea of rights reserved to the states. State's rights and state power.

If you enjoyed the video and it helped you understand the 8th amendment, please hit that like button and subscribe to the channel!

Join this channel to get access to perks:

#10thamendment #tenthamendment #amendment10 #usconstitution

[BayWulf]

Nicely presented.
Clean yet with a couple good examples.

[donaldclifford]

"...and to the People, respectively."

[BazNo-ei]

Again, a woman’s right to her own body we’ve left the states. Decide what a woman can do with her own body

[SummerYeti]

I clicked on this because I like he-man

[kurtcpi]

The difference between prohibition and legislation is, of course, that prohibition was a constitutional amendment. Legislation at the federal level is a constitutional process, but by virtue of the 10th amendment cannot extend beyond the boundaries of the explicit constitutional whitelist that is the sum of the articles and amendments without, at the very least, the state's consent. Judicially this has run amuck, mostly because the states have willingly ceded their authority to federal legislation. And fairly enough, the legislature is representative of the states, is an existing infrastructure, and serves as a board where states can agree to accept federal legislation as precedence over, or in lieu of, state law. Things like the Interstate Commerce Act are sensible. But as states cede more and more, they lose more sovereignty. Much of the legislation that objectively falls outside the listed constitutional parameters is necessary and reasonable. But much of is not. It has become far too easy for state legislatures to just defer to federal law without challenging the constitutionality.

[CloverTac]

i take a much different inerpretation of this amendment than you do i think. the language specifically says "by the Constitution". so if the federal government wants to mandate or control the state on things not included in the Consittution they cannot, constitutionally speaking and without an ultimate court battle, just pass legislation seizing that control. this type of activity by a federal congreass would defeat the purpose of this amendment, no? now, you example of ratification of an amendment to the Constitution granting that federal control, yeah, the proper way to do things, constitutionally speaking because the states themselves cede that power. there could be a case made that prior to the 17th amendment, which i think needs to be repealed ASAP, that a federal congress could pass legislation. while i am not sure this would have passed constitutional muster either, at least the state had direct representation in congreass, something the 17th stripped away. to me the 17th is contradictory to both the language and the spirit of the 10th. for those reading this, the 17th changed from state appointed senators to electing senators by popular vote. thanks for the video!