Poderes reservados

En Australia, el artículo 107 de la Constitución australiana preservó que todos los poderes no conferidos exclusivamente ( artículo 52 y otros) a la Commonwealth pudieran seguir siendo ejercidos por los Estados. ^{[ 3 ]} El artículo 51 otorga al Parlamento Federal la facultad de legislar para la paz, el orden y el buen gobierno de Australia con respecto a una lista enumerada de poderes . ^{[ 4 ]} Estos son poderes concurrentes que pueden ser ejercidos tanto por la Commonwealth como por los Estados, pero si existe un conflicto entre ambos, prevalece la ley de la Commonwealth de conformidad con el artículo 109.

En la jurisprudencia australiana temprana, el Tribunal Superior buscaba proteger la mayor autonomía posible de los estados interpretando la Constitución de manera que preservara las competencias reservadas a los estados. Esto se conocía como la « doctrina de las competencias reservadas ». En esencia, esta doctrina implicaba que el Tribunal determinaría primero cuáles eran las competencias reservadas a los estados antes de determinar si la Commonwealth tenía potestad legislativa sobre un tema en particular. Para ello, el Tribunal consideraría si la Constitución, como pacto federal, pretendía que la potestad se retirara de los estados y se confiriera a la Commonwealth. ^{[ 5 ]}

This interprative approach to the Constitution was emphatically rejected by the High Court in the Engineers' Case. The Court now insisted on adhering only to the language of the constitutional text read as a whole in its natural sense and in light of the circumstances in which it was made: there was to be no reading in of implications by reference to the presumed intentions of the framers. In particular, since there is no mention of "reserved State powers," only one express inter-governmental immunity (regarding property taxes: section 114), and, an express provision asserting the superiority of valid Commonwealth laws over inconsistent State laws (section 109), there was no longer any room for the doctrine previously asserted in favour of the States.

As a result the Court will first determine the extent of the Commonwealth's legislative power under the Constitution before determining what powers are reserved to the States under section 107.^[6]

In Canada the reserved powers lie with the federal government.^[7]

Article 246 (1) states of the Constitution of India leaves the residuary powers to the Parliament of India by stating that the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws on matters enumerated in Union List. The Entry 97 of the Union List or List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India reads: 97. Any other matter not enumerated in List II or List III including any tax not mentioned in either of those Lists.

In the United States, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states, unless prohibited to the states.^[7][8] This amendment does not refer to powers “explicitly” or “expressly” granted to the federal government, and therefore the federal government possesses many implied powers that are not reserved to the states.^[9]

After World War II, the Supreme Court often ruled against parties challenging the powers of Congress per the Tenth Amendment, with exceptions during the Rehnquist Court.^[10] The Supreme Court continues to occasionally decide cases striking down federal laws that exceed both the explicit and implied powers of Congress, as in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018).

In the United States, many powers that are not reserved powers to the states are exclusive federal powers, and thus states are forbidden to exercise them. Alternatively, powers that are not reserved to the states may be concurrent powers that both the states and federal government can exercise at the same time (such as the power to enact taxes to raise revenue).^[11]