Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].

Below are the first three paragraphs to the newly published article in the Federalist Society Review entitled "More News on Powers Reserved Exclusively to the States". We hope you enjoy the piece.

* * *

This essay updates and supplements an article published last year in the Federalist Society Review entitled The Founders Interpret the Constitution: The Division of Federal and State Powers.[1] That article explained how during the Constitution’s ratification debates (1787-90), leading Federalists (the Constitution’s advocates) issued authoritative enumerations of powers that would remain outside the federal sphere under the Constitution if ratified. Most of the enumerators were highly respected American lawyers. The two most important non-lawyers were Tench Coxe and James Madison. Coxe was a Philadelphia businessman and economist, member of the 1789 Confederation Congress, and future assistant secretary of the treasury.[2]Coxe’s ratification-era writings were highly influential among the general ratifying public—perhaps as influential as the essays in The Federalist.[3]

Subsequent interpreters of legal texts generally give considerable weight to representations of meaning presented by a measure’s sponsors.[4] The Federalists enumerating powers the Constitution denied to the central government clearly intended that the ratifying public rely on their representations. These representations squarely contradict claims by some commentators that the Constitution conferred near-plenary authority on the federal government.

This essay serves two purposes. First, it briefly addresses and refutes claims that near-plenary federal power lurks within two seemingly straightforward constitutional grants: the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Second, it summarizes how materials reproduced in three newly published volumes in the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution of the United States reinforce the conclusion of last year’s article.[5]

Click here to read the full article.