Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
The Tenth Amendment has been consistently construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end. The end sought by Congress through the Hatch Act is better public service by requiring those who administer funds for national needs to abstain from active political partisanship. So even though the action taken by Congress does have effect upon certain activities within the state, it has never been thought that such effect made the federal act invalid.
A member of the State Highway Commission of Oklahoma, whose principal employment was in connection with an activity financed in part by loans and grants from a federal agency, served at the same time as Chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee. During his service on the Highway Commission, there was no general election in the State; but he advised with the Governor concerning a dinner sponsored by his Committee to raise funds for political purposes, called the meeting to order, and introduced the toastmaster. Pursuant to § 12 of the Hatch Act, 18 U. S. C. § 61l, the United States Civil Service Commission determined that these activities constituted taking an "active part in political management or in political campaigns" and that this warranted his removal from the office of Highway Commissioner. It so notified him and the State. Pursuant to § 12 (c) of the Hatch Act, the State instituted proceedings in a federal district court to review this determination.
Did § 12(a) violate the Tenth Amendment?
The Court ruled that the statutory authority to review the Commission's order included the power to determine the constitutionality the basis of the order, § 12(a). The Court held that § 12(a) did not violate the Tenth Amendment because Congress had power to fix the terms upon which its money allotments to states were to be disbursed.