The constitutional text

Article I · Section 10

Select any highlighted phrase to understand what it means.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Source: National Constitution Center edition. Original wording is preserved; commentary explains historical and superseded provisions.

Go at your own pace

You don’t have to understand everything at once. One connection is a good beginning.

LOOK A LITTLE CLOSER

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3c

Agreements and compacts

Current text
enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,

What it means

The text conditions state agreements or compacts with other states or foreign powers on congressional consent. The covered category must be distinguished from the treaties, alliances, and confederations barred earlier.

Historical setting

The Articles also sought national supervision over interstate combinations. Cooperation can solve boundary and shared-resource problems, but combinations of states can also affect the power and interests of the Union.

What it does

Constitutional interpretation has not treated every ordinary cooperative arrangement as requiring identical formal consent. The relevant question includes whether the agreement falls within the constitutional category and affects federal supremacy.

Debate & interpretation

The design permits coordinated state action while protecting national interests against competing alliances. The difficult cases lie between routine cooperation and arrangements that substantially alter the constitutional balance.

A common misreading

An interstate agreement is not automatically either unconstitutional or exempt; its substance and the applicable consent rule matter.

Think it through

How would you distinguish ordinary coordination over a shared river from an agreement creating a rival center of political power?

Follow the connection

Sources & further reading

Original Madison Center commentary. Explanations distinguish the text, historical context, and interpretive disagreements.

Sign in to save