Thirteen years later, the mechanism is clear. Power accumulates and rarely returns to the people.
By Craig Bushon
Back in January of 2013, I wrote the following: “We The People must stand up for the 10th Amendment.” “Americans must not allow the superseding of the Constitution.” “Liberty through decentralization.” “The citizens of the United States must not allow the federal government to continue to supersede the Constitution.”
At the time, many people viewed that as a political statement. It was not. It was an observation about structure. And today, it reads less like a warning and more like a description of how the system has continued to evolve.
The Tenth Amendment is not obscure constitutional language. It is a structural boundary. It defines where federal authority ends and where the authority of states and citizens begins.
It states clearly that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. The Tenth Amendment isn’t just some symbolic line in the Constitution. It’s the actual operating rule for how power is supposed to be divided,that’s literally how the framers built the system to work.
During the ratification of the Constitution, there were serious concerns from figures like Patrick Henry and George Mason. Their arguments were not emotional. They were structural. A centralized government, if left unchecked, would accumulate power over time and distance itself from the people it was supposed to serve.
That is not theory. That is a pattern.
Patrick Henry, one of the fiercest voices against ratification at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, refused to attend the Constitutional Convention because he “smelt a rat.” He warned repeatedly that the new system risked consolidation, turning a federation of states into a single, overpowering national government that would erode state sovereignty and individual liberties.
Key quotes from Henry capture the essence:
- “This Government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the State Governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving them previous notice.”
- “Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume…” (on the dangers of broad, vague clauses allowing endless federal expansion).
- “There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security.”
- “Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints towards monarchy.”
Henry feared gradual power accumulation at the federal level, distant from the people, with weak accountability—exactly the pattern we see today.
George Mason, author of Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights (a direct influence on the U.S. Bill of Rights), also refused to sign the Constitution. He circulated his “Objections to This Constitution of Government” in 1787, which became hugely influential.
From Mason:
- “There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security.”
- “The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us.”
- “This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments… The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.”
- He pushed for “some express declaration in the constitution, asserting that rights not given to the general government, were retained by the states”—language that directly shaped the Tenth Amendment.
Their pressure helped secure the Bill of Rights, including the Tenth Amendment, as a safeguard against the consolidation they feared.
This proximity matters because accountability is a function of access.
This is where the Tenth Amendment becomes practical, not philosophical. It keeps decision making closer to the people. It limits the scope of federal reach. It creates friction against consolidation of power.
When that boundary is ignored, the system begins to shift. Federal agencies expand their regulatory footprint. National policy begins to override regional differences. Local governance becomes secondary to centralized directives.
This is not about political preference. This is about system design.
A constitutional republic depends on distributed authority. Remove that distribution, and the system does not operate the same way. It becomes more centralized, less responsive, and increasingly difficult to correct from the outside.
You can see how this plays out across administrations, regardless of party.
Federal agencies have expanded their scope under both Republican and Democrat leadership. Environmental rules, healthcare mandates, financial regulations, and labor standards may differ in direction, but the mechanism is consistent. Congress delegates broad authority, agencies interpret it, and enforcement scales nationally. The party changes. The structure does not.
Surveillance authority follows the same pattern. After the expansion of national security powers in the early 2000s, those capabilities were not meaningfully reduced as administrations changed. They were maintained, reauthorized, and used under different leadership. Once established, the system retains the authority.
Emergency powers show a similar dynamic. Whether during financial crises or public health events, executive authority expands to act quickly. The justification varies, but the structural outcome is consistent. Power centralizes during urgency and is rarely fully relinquished afterward.
Education provides another example. Traditionally managed at the state and local level, it has seen increased federal influence through funding conditions, national benchmarks, and regulatory guidance. Different administrations prioritize different policies, but the mechanism remains the same. Federal leverage increases.
Energy and land use policy also reflect this pattern. Decisions about drilling, pipelines, and federal land access shift depending on leadership, but control remains centralized. States respond to federal decisions rather than driving them independently.
The pattern is consistent.
Once authority moves to the federal level, it does not matter which party is in power. The structure allows whoever is in control to use that authority in alignment with their priorities.
That is the core issue.
If the boundary defined by the Tenth Amendment is not actively maintained, power accumulates at the top. Elections then become shifts in direction, not limits on scope.
This is why the Tenth Amendment must be defended consistently, not selectively.
Not when your side is out of power. Not only when a policy disagrees with you. But as a structural principle that applies regardless of who is in charge.
Bottom line The Tenth Amendment is not outdated. It is one of the clearest mechanisms for preserving liberty by keeping power divided and accountable. If that boundary continues to erode, the balance between the federal government and the people does not hold.
And when that balance breaks, it is not restored by intention. It is restored by action.
We don’t just follow the headlines… we read between the lines to get to the bottom line of what’s really going on.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational and commentary purposes only. It reflects a constitutional and structural analysis of federalism and governance. It is not legal advice. Viewers and readers are encouraged to review primary constitutional sources and form their own conclusions based on the full scope of historical and legal context.
