States cp ddi 2012
Federalism high now – Courts shifted congress power to states
Download 0.94 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Regulating interstate commerce is a façade for increased federal control
Federalism high now – Courts shifted congress power to statesMarcia L. McCormick, Professor of Law at St. Louis University, 2004, Indiana Law Review, Vol. 37 No. 2, Hein Online, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/indilr37&div=18&g_sent=1&collection=journals, TB The last decade has seen a transformation in the way the Supreme Court views the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and principles of state sovereign immunity limit the power of the federal judiciacy and protect the states from suit by individuals in federal court. The Supreme Court has read this protection more and more broadly. At the same time, the Court has been reading Congress’ power to enact certain kinds of protective legislation more and more narrowly. These two areas of jurisprudence have converged to limit the power of Congress to provide remedies for civil rights violations by the states. This convergence is troubling for a number of reasons both practical[1] and jurisprudential[2]. But few scholars have recognized the danger that the Court’s jurisprudence posts to Congress’ general ability to protect individual liberty and equality. Not only has the Court limited the power of Congress under the guise of limiting the power of the judicial branch,3 but it also has restricted the power of Congress to enact lasting civil rights legislation. In a line of cases, the Court has systematically violated longstanding principles of separation of powers and enigrated the norms of national citizenship, equality, and liberty, which are central to our core constitutional values.4 Under the law as it stands, Congress can pass laws to protect citizens from a broad range of actions by the states under several different parts of the Constitution, but it can provide a private right of action for damanges against states only under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While it is not the only remedy in the grand scheme of things, a private right of action for money damages is one of the most effective deterrents to illegal conduct because it decentralizes enforcement power to individuals and because money, by its nature, is a limited resource.5 Link – general States need more power—the Constitution proves NewsMax 10 [Dan Well, Staff Writer, NewsMax, 9/28/12, “Tea Party Activist: Give States More Power”, NewsMax, http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/teapartyMarianneMoran/2010/09/28/id/371852] aw Congress, says Marianne Moran, executive director of The Tea Party in Action.“It’s important to restore the balance of power between the states and federal government,” Moran tells Newsmax.TV.“The states can make Congress submit to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment giving two-thirds of states the power to repeal anything Congress does.”That would restore the Constitution, says Moran, whose tea party organization is based in Florida.“Our Constitution has been ignored. The 10th Amendment [protecting states’ rights] is useless.” The Supreme Court’s bad decisions over the past 50-plus years have rendered it impotent, she says. States would be able to use the power to repeal the healthcare reform law, which she says amounts to an unfunded mandate.“We’re shackled now,” says Moran, who adds that no amount of fiscal discipline can save states from the flood of federal debt coming their way from unconstitutional mandates such as Obamacare.“We need the authority back that the founders originally wanted,” she says. “We can do that by forcing Congress to give us the repeal amendment.” Federalism key to transportation policy Dilger 11 [Robert Jay Dilger, Senior Specialist in American National Government, Congressional Research Service, 1/5/11, “Federalism Issues in Surface Transportation Policy: Past and Present”, p.4, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40431.pdf] aw Several other organizations have also advocated changes in federalism relationships in surface transportation policy. For example, the National Conference of State Legislatures has argued that “The Congress should not re-enact SAFETEA-LU and must look at surface transportation anew, authorizing a new program that better meets current and future needs for interstate mobility.” It argued that Congress should articulate a new national vision for surface transportation that focuses on “legitimate federal objectives: interstate commerce and freight mobility; interstate movement of people; national defense and homeland security; safety; environmental and air quality preservation and improvements; and research and innovation” and heeds “the Tenth Amendment and not intervene in or interfere with state-specific transportation priorities.” This will not be the first time that Congress has considered proposals to alter federalism relationships in surface transportation policy. Congress has debated the federal role in transportation policy since the nation’s formation in 1789. The following sections provide a historical perspective on contemporary federalism issues in surface transportation policy, focusing on efforts to devolve programmatic responsibility to states, change state maintenance-ofeffort requirements, and alter federal reimbursement matching rates. Link – Commerce Regulating interstate commerce is a façade for increased federal controlMaharrey, Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, 1/18/12, (Mike, The Tenth Amendment Center, “Not Everything is ‘Interstate Commerce,’” http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/18/not-everything-is-interstate-commerce/ Since the infamous Wickard v. Fliburn case, the feds use the commerce clause to justify virtually unlimited intrusion into nearly every corner of American life. From regulating the nation’s entire health care system to waging a “war on drugs,” federal agents wield power over the states and the people via the commerce clause.¶ ¶ Rep. John Yarmuth reluctantly admitted the truth during a radio interview in August 2010. The show host asked the Kentucky Democrat: what can’t the federal government do if it can mandate Americans must purchase health insurance.¶ ¶ “It really doesn’t prohibit the government from doing virtually anything – the federal government. So I don’t know the answer to your question, because I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldn’t do,” Yarmuth replied.¶ ¶ Of course, the commerce clause was never intended to grant such sweeping power. It was meant to allow the feds to regulate trade across state lines with some ancillary power to regulate shipping and transportation. That’s it. It didn’t grant the federal government the power to regulate manufacturing or agriculture, and it certainly wasn’t meant to allow the feds to interfere with commerce engaged in strictly within a state’s own borders. James Madison alluded to the limits of the commerce regulating power.¶ ¶ “It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”
Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.94 Mb. Share with your friends:
|