Why the Word “Expressly” was Omitted From the Tenth Amendment
Andrew Hyman
Professor Kurt Lash recently wrote a blog post titled, On the Omission of the Term ‘Expressly’ from the Tenth Amendment. My co-bloggers Michael Ramsey and Mike Rappaport replied here and here respectively. I would like to add a few thoughts.
The particular reason why the word “expressly” was omitted from the Tenth Amendment is because of passports. During the Virginia Ratification Convention, Edmund Randolph said that the Articles of Confederation had been “interpreted to prohibit congress from granting passports.” To prevent such things from happening again under the new Constitution, the word “expressly” was omitted.
I don’t know if Professor Lash believes the federal government now has power to issue passports; it could be argued that the general power to permit entry to the United States is retained by the states, though I doubt that very much (especially because the word “expressly” was omitted from the Tenth Amendment). If the federal government lacks that power, then it may also lack power to refuse permission for immigration as well.
There’s a backstory. In 1782, just after the war ended, the Continental Congress issued passports to certain British merchants. Randolph, as attorney general of Virginia, argued that the passports were valid; he believed that the word "expressly" in the articles of Confederation "ought not to be understood literally: but that the words 'expressly delegated' meant an obvious and direct consequence from the general powers, briefly sketched in the confederation...." But the Virginia House of Delegates disagreed on May 20, 1782. Then a committee of the Continental Congress said that the objections by the House of Delegates had been “founded on misapprehension.” To clear up that mess, the word "expressly" was later removed from the draft Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.