Enumerated Powers: The Constitution's Explicit Authorities

The US Constitution grants certain powers to the federal government, known as enumerated or expressed powers. These are listed in Article I, Section 8, and include the power to lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce, establish uniform rules of naturalization, and provide for the common defence of the United States. The Tenth Amendment, added to the Bill of Rights in 1791, clarifies that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. This has been interpreted as a limit on the federal government's authority, with the Supreme Court invoking it in decisions regarding states' rights and civil liberties. The interpretation of these powers has evolved over time, with strict constructionists arguing for a narrow interpretation and loose constructionists believing Congress should have more leeway in determining its own powers.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States

$1.5

Constitution of the United States (Books of American Wisdom)

$9.25 $9.95

U.S. Constitution For Dummies

$12.99

Understanding the U.S. Constitution, Grades 5 - 8

$68

The Updated Constitution: Discover An Update Of The Constitution

$6.19

The Politics of Judicial Independence: Courts, Politics, and the Public

$61 $33

The power to lay and collect taxes

The Taxing Clause grants Congress the authority to assess, levy, and collect taxes without any assistance from the states. This power is not limited to repaying debts, such as those incurred during the Revolutionary War, but also extends to prospective taxes for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. The Framers of the Constitution and its ratifiers agreed on the importance of this power, placing it first in the list of enumerated powers granted to Congress.

The power to tax implicitly includes the power to spend the resulting revenues to meet the objectives and goals of the government. This interpretation has been disputed, with some arguing that Congress's spending power arises from the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Taxing Clause. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may use federal funds to incentivize state governments to adopt and enforce federal policies that would otherwise be beyond the direct powers of the federal government.

The Taxing Clause has been interpreted as granting Congress broad authority in taxation. The Supreme Court has emphasized the exhaustive nature of this power, stating that it "reaches every subject" and "embraces every conceivable power of taxation." However, there are some limitations to this power. For example, Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 states that no tax or duty shall be imposed on articles exported from any state. Additionally, the Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, clarified Congress's power to levy income taxes without apportionment among the states.

Overall, the power to lay and collect taxes is essential to the effective administration of the government and plays a crucial role in shaping federal policies and achieving national goals.

The power to regulate commerce with foreign nations

The Commerce Clause, or Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with Indian tribes. This clause addresses the problems of interstate trade barriers and enables the federal government to enter into trade agreements with foreign powers.

The original meaning of the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to regulate the trade, transportation, or movement of persons and goods from one state to a foreign nation, another state, or an Indian tribe. It did not include the power to regulate the economic activities that produced the goods to be traded or transported, such as manufacturing or agriculture.

Over time, interpretations of the Commerce Clause have evolved, with the Supreme Court recognising broader grounds upon which the clause could be used to regulate state activity. For example, in Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824, the Supreme Court held that intrastate activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause, provided that it was part of a larger interstate commercial scheme. Later, in Swift and Company v. United States in 1905, the Supreme Court affirmed Congress's authority to regulate local commerce as long as it could become part of a continuous "current" of commerce involving the interstate movement of goods and services.

However, in United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court attempted to curtail Congress's broad legislative mandate under the Commerce Clause by adopting a more conservative interpretation. In this case, the defendant argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in local schools. The Court held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and actions that substantially affect interstate commerce.

The power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution grants Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. This power allows Congress to determine the rules and processes for foreign nationals to become US citizens. The Naturalization Clause is often seen as contributing to Congress's authority over immigration, including the ability to set criteria for when aliens may enter or stay in the United States.

The Supreme Court has described naturalization as "the act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen." While the first Congress enacted federal laws governing naturalization, the Supreme Court initially appeared to recognize that states retained some naturalization powers. However, in cases such as Chirac v. Lessee of Chirac (1817) and United States v. Villato (1797), the Court ultimately concluded that the power to prescribe uniform rules of naturalization rests exclusively with Congress.

Citizenship by naturalization is a privilege granted by Congress, and applicants must adhere to the established laws and procedures. Congress has broad control over the naturalization process, but it is restricted in conditioning the retention of conferred citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment declares that individuals born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, and Congress cannot discriminate among these citizens when setting rules for expatriation, barring instances of fraud in obtaining naturalization.

Naturalization can occur through individual application and official response based on congressional rules, but it is not limited to this process. Congress can also confer citizenship through special acts, such as in the case of Sir Winston Churchill, who was made an honorary citizen. Additionally, naturalization can be granted collectively through congressional action or treaty provisions.

Explore related products

Peace and Ethnic Identity in Northern Ireland: Consociational Power Sharing and Conflict Management (Exeter Studies in Ethno Politics)

$202.59 $58.99

The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power

$42.83 $49.95

Freedom’s Dominion (Winner of the Pulitzer Prize): A Saga of White Resistance to Federal Power

$16.77 $21.99

Federal Preemption: States' Powers, National Interests

$17.7 $20

The First Modern Clash over Federal Power: Wilson versus Hughes in the Presidential Election of 1916 (American Presidential Elections)

$29.61 $37.99

Federal Power Act: as amended through P.L. 115-325, enacted December 18, 2018

$14.99

The power to punish counterfeiting

The United States Constitution grants Congress the power to punish the counterfeiting of securities and the current coin of the United States. This power is derived from Article I, Section 8, Clause 6 of the Constitution, also known as the Counterfeiting Clause.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Counterfeiting Clause narrowly, holding that it covers only the specific offence of counterfeiting, or the creation of forged coins, and not the separate offence of fraudulently using forged coins in transactions. This interpretation was established in the cases of Fox v. Ohio (1847) and United States v. Marigold (1850).

The Court has also upheld the power of states to punish the use of forged coins, as ruled in Fox v. Ohio. Additionally, federal statutes penalizing the importation, circulation, or possession of counterfeit coins or coin-making equipment have been sustained by the Court. These rulings are based on the understanding that the power to coin money includes the obligation to protect and preserve the purity of the nation's currency.

In a 1984 decision, the Supreme Court observed that Congress had relied on its counterfeiting authority to pass statutes restricting the use of photographic depictions of currency. However, the Court did not directly consider the scope of the Counterfeiting Clause in this case, and some commentators have argued that the clause is unnecessary as Congress would have the power to punish counterfeiting under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The power to declare war

The Declare War Clause is a crucial check on executive power, ensuring that the decision to engage in armed conflict rests with the legislative branch. It reflects the Framers' intent to prevent the President from having unchecked authority to involve the nation in war, a power historically wielded by monarchs. The Clause's interpretation and application have evolved over time, with modern hostilities rarely beginning with a formal declaration of war.

While the President, as commander-in-chief, has the power to direct the military and defend the nation from sudden attacks, the Declare War Clause limits their ability to initiate military action without Congressional approval. This interpretation is widely accepted, but the extent of this limitation is still debated. Some argue that Presidents can use military force without a formal declaration, while others contend that Congressional authorization is necessary for any use of force.

The Korean War, Vietnam War, and other recent conflicts have been ""undeclared wars," with Presidents engaging in military operations without express Congressional consent. These actions have sparked ongoing debates about the appropriate balance of powers between the President and Congress in matters of war and peace.

Congress has occasionally sought to reassert its authority over war powers, such as with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the President to obtain Congressional approval for military deployments and provides a framework for Congressional oversight. Nonetheless, the interpretation and application of the Declare War Clause remain contested, reflecting the complex nature of constitutional powers during times of war and national emergency.

Frequently asked questions