Elizabeth Jo

Because this would upset the balance of power that the Supreme Court sees between the federal government and the governments of the states.

And they see that embodied in the Tenth Amendment.

Really, the Tenth Amendment is kind of like standing in for this idea.

Yeah.

So that's pretty clear.

So really what it's telling Congress is there are certain things you can do, like you can regulate, you know, commerce moving across state lines.

You can tell persons, private entities to do things right to behave in certain ways.

But you can't tell the states.

to do things in ways that are treating them like they're your servants, essentially, right?

That's what the anti-commenteering clause means.

And this idea has also been extended to the spending power, too.

The federal government can certainly offer financial incentives to the states under Congress's spending power, which we find in Article 1, on the condition that the states do what the federal government wants.

Now, it might seem, Roman, like this is

kind of similar to commandeering, right?

Like, well, I can't, you know, we want you to do something, here's some money.

But the idea under federal spending authority is theoretically states have a choice.

Yeah, they can say no.

We don't want to do this.

We don't feel like listening to your federal government.

And because they have a choice, it doesn't raise the same problem.