(Hammer v. Dagenhart) v. (Bond v. United States)

For those of you (few in number) who have stuck with me to the Tenth Amendment, I applaud you dealing with some of the more mundane amendments. With your commitment in mind, I’ve decided to treat you to two cases for the price of one amendment.

The Tenth Amendment is the absolute antithesis of saving the best for last. I have nothing more than that to say about it. Here is the text of the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The Tenth Amendment was basically the framers way of saying “Hey, the federal government doesn’t control everything.” This amendment paved the way for federalism, reserving some rights to the states and setting up the separation of powers between federal, state, and local governments that exists to this day.

Very few cases have ever relied on the Tenth Amendment, and in a Supreme Court case in 1931, the justices agreed that the good old number 10 didn’t really add anything to the Constitution. However, there have been a handful of cases (literally countable on one hand) that deal directly with the Tenth Amendment.

The first, Hammer v. Dagenhart, was argued in 1918. At the time, a federal law outlawed shipping goods that were produced by child labor over state lines on the basis of the federal government’s right to legislate on interstate commerce. Dagenhart sued, claiming that the federal government couldn’t take away his right to send his 14 year old son to work in a textile mill. What a wonderful father.

Probably not Dagenhart, but let's act like it might be | Courtesy of Glogster

The Supreme Court, in a tight 5-4 decision, ruled that regulation of production was one of the rights not delegated to the United States and therefore reserved to the states. Justice Day, writing for the court, wrote that “the powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved” to the states. Adding the word expressly, Day specified further the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment and broadened its potential implementation. Even the addition of one measly adverb can make a significant legal difference.

Another "important" case, Bond v. United States, was decided much more recently, in June of 2011. In this case, Carol Bond acquired highly toxic chemicals from the company she worked for and tried to poison her husband’s mistress (and baby mama) 24 times over several months. Bond was found guilty and appealed but was denied appeal because she didn’t have standing to challenge the law based on the Tenth Amendment. Bond appealed this inability to appeal, somewhat confusingly, and found her way to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Roberts: "Nor do the other circumstances of Bond's offense - an act of
revenge born of romantic jealousy, meant to cause discomfort, that produced
nothing more than a minor thumb burn - suggest that a chemical weapon was
deployed in Norristown, Pennsylvania." | Image Courtesy of GSMRR Club

At the Supreme Court, a unanimous decision found that Bond did indeed have the right to appeal, and it is not only states who may attempt to invalidate laws under the Tenth Amendment but individuals as well. Bond was granted her appeal at the district court and lost again, appealed to the Supreme Court again, and again the Supreme Court supported her. This time, the Supreme Court asserted that the Chemical Warfare Act did not extend to Bond and she could not be tried under it.

As you can see, particularly from the Bond cases, the Tenth Amendment is a complicated mess of legalese but is still vital to our government’s functioning. For those of you have made it this far, once again, I commend you and appreciate your support.