Massachusetts
In the Massachusetts Convention, on January 15, 1788, Christopher Gore observed, “in the proposed Constitution, the powers of the whole government are limited to certain national objects, and are accurately defined.” (
Elliott’s Debates, 2:16-18)
Massachusetts in her ratification instrument resolved “That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised. (
Elliott’s Debates, 2:131).
Pennsylvania
In the Pennsylvania Convention, October 28, 1787, James Wilson. “In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with. When, therefore, they possess, as I have already mentioned, the fee-simple of authority, why should they have recourse to the minute and subordinate remedies, which can be necessary only to those who pass the fee, and reserve only a rent-charge?” (
Elliot’s Debates, 2:437.)
James Wilson speaking to the public said, “When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve; and therefore upon every question respecting the jurisdiction of the House of Assembly, if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced, and the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything which is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything which is not given is reserved.” (
https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1787-wilson-address-to-the-people-of-philadelphia-speech)
December 11, 1787, Thomas McKean said, “this government embraces only enumerated powers. In a single state, annual elections may be proper; the more so, when the legislative powers extend to all cases; but in such an extent of country as the United States, and when the powers are circumscribed, there is not that necessity, nor are the objects of the general government of that nature as to be acquired immediately by every capacity.” (
Elliot’s Debates, 2:533.)
Thomas McKean said, “Another objection was taken from these words of the Constitution—'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof.’ And, in declaring ‘that this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land,’ this has at last been conceded, that, though it is explicit enough, yet it gives to Congress no further powers than those already enumerated. Those that first said it gave to Congress the power of superseding the state governments, cannot persist in it; for no person can, with a tolerable face, read the clauses over, and infer that such may be the consequence. (
Elliot’s Debates, 2:538-9)
December 11, 1787, Thomas McKean said, “the powers of Congress, being derived from the people in the mode pointed out by this Constitution, and being therein enumerated and positively granted, can be no other than what this positive grant conveys. … With respect to executive officers, they have no manner of authority, any of them, beyond what is by positive grant and commission delegated to them.”
North Carolina
In the NC Convention, on July 28th, 1788, Archibald MacLaine said, “The powers of Congress are limited and enumerated. We say we have given them those powers, but we do not say we have given them more. We retain all those rights which we have not given away to the general government. … If they can assume powers not enumerated, there was no occasion for enumerating any powers. … if we had all power before, and give away but a part, we still retain the rest. It is as plain a thing as possibly can be, that Congress can have no power but what we expressly give them.” (
Elliot’s Debates, 4:140 – 141.)
Gov. Johnston said, “the gentleman says that a bill of rights was necessary. It appears to me, sir, that it would have been the highest absurdity to undertake to define what rights the people of the United States were entitled to; for that would be as much as to say they were entitled to nothing else. A bill of rights may be necessary in a monarchical government, whose powers are undefined. Were we in the situation of a monarchical country? No, sir. Every right could not be enumerated, and the omitted rights would be sacrificed, if security arose from an enumeration. The Congress cannot assume any other powers than those expressly given them, without a palpable violation of the Constitution. (
Elliot’s Debates, 4:142)
Future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell said, “Of what use, therefore, can a bill of rights be in this Constitution, where the people expressly declare how much power they do give, and consequently retain all they do not? It is a declaration of particular powers by the people to their representatives, for particular purposes. It may be considered as a great power of attorney, under which no power can be exercised but what is expressly given. Did any man ever hear, before, that at the end of a power of attorney it was said that the attorney should not exercise more power than was there given him? Suppose, for instance, a man had lands in the counties of Anson and Caswell, and he should give another a power of attorney to sell his lands in Anson, would the other have any authority to sell the lands in Caswell? or could he, without absurdity, say, "'Tis true you have not expressly authorized me to sell the lands in Caswell; but as you had lands there, and did not say I should not, I thought I might as well sell those lands as the other." (
Elliot’s Debates, 4:148-9).
On July 29th 1788, James Iredell said, “…If the Congress should claim any power not given them, it would be as bare a usurpation as making a king in America. If this Constitution be adopted, it must be presumed the instrument will be in the hands of every man in America, to see whether authority be usurped; and any person by inspecting it may see if the power claimed be enumerated. If it be not, he will know it to be a usurpation.” (
Elliot’s Debates, 4:172)
On July 30th 1788, Iredell continued: “The powers of the government are particularly enumerated and defined: they can claim no others but such as are so enumerated. In my opinion, they are excluded as much from the exercise of any other authority as they could be by the strongest negative clause that could be framed.” (
Elliot’s Debates, 4:219-220)
Finally, just so there would be no confusion the state of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island made explicit the terms under which they had delegated powers to the federal government.