It is also clear that a fair exemption from compensation is not the only one that must be read in the contractual clause for it to make sense. Some treaties are entered into by fraud or coercion, and it is certain that these common law defences against their application are not disturbed by constitutional requirements. At the very least, this simple observation means that a version of police violence must be read into the Constitution to cover these contingencies. It was generally used in Brown v. Maryland (1827), which dealt with the import/export clause of Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 and recognized that «police violence» covered at least «gunpowder removal.» Brown, in turn, leads to the interpretative challenge of how to identify the forms of regulation that survive the literal application of the contractual clause beyond the obvious cases of gunpowder and other potential harassment. However, the confusion only gets worse because some of the most important provisions of Article 1, Section 10, can affect the rights of the individual if, as Professor Rakove notes, they are understood as federal controls over what sovereign states are allowed to do to their citizens. In some of these cases, such as the adoption of laws and specifications ex post facto, it is not a question of reserving certain tasks to the national government by denying them to the states. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 prohibits Congress from passing bills or laws ex post facto in the same manner as Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 does for states. The identical nature of the two prohibitions has nothing to do with the division of powers between levels of government, but with the belief that the exclusion of certain persons for special treatment or the retroactive imposition of criminal sanctions for acts that were lawful when committed reads as a protection of natural law that is universally applicable. In fact, much of the debate in the Constitutional Convention was not about the correctness of these prohibitions, but about whether they were necessary, since the prohibited activities were generally condemned as despicable in the tradition of natural law. See Daniel Troy, ex post facto, in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.
Article 10 imposes a similar list of prohibitions on state powers. Article 1 contains absolute prohibitions that Congress cannot do without. Articles 2 and 3 impose prohibitions that Congress can do without – presumably through legislation, although the text does not specify whether a joint resolution is subject to a presidential veto. It is difficult to explain why the prohibitions contained in Clause 1 cannot be lifted by Congress, while those in the last two clauses can be repealed. But in both cases, the interests of the state are subordinated to those of the national government. Article 1, section 10, contains a long and somewhat diverse list of prohibitions prohibiting States from engaging in certain activities. The understanding of its importance depends first of all on its place in the broader framework of Article I, which is mainly devoted to determining the structure of Congress and then to enumerating its legislative powers. These activities relate to Articles 1 to 8.
Section 9 prohibits a wide range of federal government activities, from weakening habeas corpus privilege to taxing state exports. While this is true, it does not explain why the clause applies equally to all local contracts. A second statement, which McConnell also discussed, is directed against local abuses such as debt relief laws. When James Madison on Article I, Section 10 in The Federalist No. 44, he condemned the «sudden changes and legislative interference» of states in the business affairs of their citizens, even for transactions that take place entirely within a state. The said States join firmly for their common defence, for the security of their freedoms and for their mutual and general good, and undertake to assist each other against any violence or attack against them or any of them for reasons of religion, sovereignty and trade. or any other pretext, it doesn`t matter. Canada, which adheres to this Confederation and adheres to the actions of the United States, is admitted to this Union and is entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony may be admitted to the same colony unless such inclusion is approved by nine states. A fourth category coordinates the respective powers of the State in matters of domestic and foreign policy. There is a clear tension between the absolute prohibition of «any treaty, covenant or confederation» in Clause 1 and the obvious authorization to enter into an agreement or contract with another state or foreign power as long as Congress consents. Finally, it should be noted that the Union was deemed sufficiently fragile that Article 10, clause 3, allows states to «wage war» and, in case of imminent danger, to renounce congressional approval.
In fact, these military matters played a major role in the founding period, as Articles I, Section 8, Articles 15 and 16 and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 also contain detailed provisions for the maintenance of State militias and the circumstances in which they could also be placed in the service of the United States. Finally, the guarantee clause in Article IV, Section 4, deals primarily with the danger of invasion, for which intervention by Congress or the President is then envisaged. The mechanisms of all these provisions are extremely complex and none are provided for in the Constitution. Restrictions on the internal legislative powers of states – as in treaty obligations laws – also deviated from any claim to sovereignty. Of course, states retained enormous legislative powers that would continue to dominate the affairs of American governance for decades. But the idea that states remain sovereign entities in the traditional sense of the word no longer made sense. No state may send a message to a king, prince or state, or receive a message from a king, or enter into a conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with a king without the consent of the United States to the assembled Congress; no person holding any profit or trust function under the United States, or any of them, may accept gifts, pardons, offices or titles of any kind from a king, prince or foreign state; nor will the United States be united in Congress or grant any title of nobility to any of them. The United States in Congress is also the last resort on appeal in all disputes and disputes that currently exist or may arise later between two or more States concerning borders, jurisdiction or other causes; which authority is always exercised in the following way.. .