POS lesson 19

New Federalism

federalism

division of power between national and state governments

10th amendment

the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution no prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

* the states retain a general “police power“ to look after the economic, social, & moral welfare of its citizens

Justice Brandeis- why are states often referred to as “laboratories of democracy“

different states may have diff rules acting

* states can try novel social economic experiences w/out risk to the rest of the country

federal supremacy → doc support

art 1 sec 10: “no state shall enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation, coin money, lay and duties on imports or exports“

Supremacy Clause (art 6): the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land

13th amendment

no more slavery or involuntary servitude

14th amendment

no state shall make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US / deprive any person of life, liberty, or property w/out due process / or deny any person w/in its jurisdiction the = protection in law

15th amendment

the right citizen to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

the civil war amendments are examples of

the federal government taking parts of the states’ ability to police themselves to ensure equality or a movement towards it

what are some benefits of shifting power to the states in current polarized political climates

all state governments to better respond to their constituent’s needs

* states have an easier time passing more partisan legislation, finding little need to compromise w/ the opposite party

Greater consistency in political representation

* in the last century no party has held more than 12 years straight of the presidency
* back and forth means that both administrative works are quickly undone
* in states same parties represent for 10-20 yrs
* longevity allows citizens to have consistent political expectations for their state governments

what are some weaknesses of shifting power to the states in current polarized political climates

Has allowed states to infringe on certain group’s rights

* civil rights had to guaranteed by the feds
* but this not a fixed solution as fed parties switch they undo the work for the last president

what role are state attorneys playing in the federalism debate

they are now filling lawsuits against the fed gov at the highest rate in history, reflecting a broader movement by the larger political parties towards increased state power and resistance to central authority

When Democrats controlled the Executive

Republic State Attorney Generals Sued

* NFIB v Sebelius (the affordable care act)

When Republicans controlled the Executive

Democrat state AG sued

* Trump v Hawaii (trumps immigration policy ban)

how does the Constitution impose federalism-based limitations on Congress’ powers

External / Explicit restraints

congress may legislate only where the constitution expressly grants it power (art 1 sec 8 enumerated powers)

McCulloch v Maryland (1819)

the constitution gives congress the implied power to create a national bank through the collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, “necessary and proper“ to carry out congress’ enumerated powers

how does the Constitution impose federalism-based limitations on Congress’ powers

internal / Implicit restraints

even when Congress legislates pursuant to an enumerated power, the text or structure of the Constitution may still prohibit it from acting

* anti-commandering
* anti-coercion
* equal sovereignty

anti commandeering

congress may not commandeer states by forcing a state executive or state legislature to implement a particular federal policy

New York v United States (1992)

Printz v United States (1997)

Murphy v NCAA (2018)

anti-coercion

Congress may not attach conditions to the receipt of federal funding when “financial inducement“ offered by such funding is so coercive as to pass the point pressure turns into compulsion

NFIB v Sebelius (2012)

equal sovereignty

Shelby County v Holder (2014)

congress **can** violate states equal sovereignty by treating them differently (subjecting them unequal regulatory burdens)

did the Warren Court generally uphold or strike down state laws that it viewed as inconsistent w/ the bill of rights

strike down

* aimed at limiting the state’s police powers

why are states resource poor in their relationship to the federal government

the Constitution bars them from minting their own money and prohibit themselves from ending the fiscal year in the red, meaning they need federal assistance

New York v US (1992) 6-3

facts

congress addressed the problem of radioactive waste by requiring states to either regulate or “take title“ (meaning take responsibility of the waste)

New York v US (1992)

issue

does the constitution allow congress to force state legislatures to pass laws to either regulate or purchase radioactive waste sites

New York v US (1992)

holding

no, even though Congress has power under the **commerce clause** (enumerated power) to regulate radioactive waste,

* congress may not commandeer state legislatures to enact and enforce a regulatory program
* violates the tenth amendment (powers not given to the feds are reserved to the state)

Applies to the State Legislatures

New York v US (1992)

O’Connor v Stevens

connor=states, writes the courts opinion, (originalist)

stevens-fed (pragmatist)

how the Rehnquist Court used the concept of federalism to limit congressional power in NY v US

the constitution gives Congress the **power to regulate individuals not states**, forcing states to pass legislation invades state sovereign and the 10th amendment

* very strict reading of an original document

Printz v US (1997)

background, what caused the Brady Handgun Violence Act

Pres Regan’s press secretary Brady is shot, he becomes disabled and is now in a wheelchair → Act

Brady Handgun Violence Act

creates national database that is in the **process** on being made

Printz v US (1997) 5-4

facts

two state sheriffs challenged the Brady Handgun Violence Act’s requirement that local officials perform fed background checks on prospective gun purchasers **while** the database is under construction

Printz v US (1997)

issue

does the Constitution allow congress to force state law enforcement officers to perform federal background checks

Printz v US (1997)

holding

NO

* the federal government may not commandeer state or local law enforcement officers to administer a federal regulatory scheme
* even if Congress has the authority under the commerce clause to regulate in this area

Applies to the State Executive Officers

Printz v US (1997)

Scalia v Stevens

Scalia= Printz, wrote court opinion (originalist), goes against the way the government is set up

Stevens= US (pragmatist) believes congress can require what is necessary and proper, the clause should be used to extent their power not take away from it

how the Rehnquist Court used the concept of federalism to limit congressional power in Printz v US

very strict reading of an original document

Murphy v NCAA (2018)

background

Profession and Amateur Sport Protection Act (PAPSA) (1992): made it unlawful for states to authorize in law sports gambling

New Jersey in 2014, wants to make sports gambling legal in certain contexts

NCAA (national collegiate athletic association) sues bc they are saying that New Jersey’s new laws are in violation

Murphy v NCAA (2018)

holding

Congress can not prohibit NJ from passing a law legalizing sports gambling

they unequivocally dictated what a state legislature may or may not do, placing states in the direct control of Congress

* applies to state legislatures

Murphy v NCAA (2018)

why does the anti-commandeering doctrine not limit federal power when congress evenly regulates an activity in which states and private actors engage

when the feds make a federal statue it limits the rights on private individuals, it is assumed that state laws will then follow this statue

* the PASPA law did not use a federal statue to sports gambling so it can only be interpreted as a direct command to the states

does the anti-commandeering doctrine prohibit congress from requiring states courts to enforce federal causes of action

Yes, it blocks requiring

Congress still has the power to encourage states and localities to adopt or enforce federal polices by paying them pursuant of the Spending Clause

Spending Clause

Congress exercise of its spending power must be in pursuit of the general welfare

* states need to be made aware of of any conditions attached to federal grants

NFIB v Sebelius (2018)

the first time a federal stature crossed the line separating permissible pressure to impermissible coercion

* the ACA does not govern new funds but threatens to get rid of existing significant independent grants
* puts a gun to the head of the states with no other option other than to follow the Medicaid expansion

NFIB v Sebelius (2018)

who wrote the opinion that invalidates part of the ACA that allowed the feral government to w/hold all Medicaid grants from states which refused to join

* who joined him

Chief Roberts

Breyer and Kagan

Shelby County v Holder (2013)

background

Voting Rights Act 1965

* created a coverage formula identifying jurisdiction w/ history of voter discrimination
* those jurisdiction need to get federal court of Department Justice approval to change their voting procedures
* this ensured that there was not denying or abridging of someone’s rights

Shelby County v Holder

What Shelby is claiming

since racial discrimination became less prevalent since 1975, there was no longer a constitutionally sufficient basis for treating certain states less favorably that others

Shelby County v Holder

holding 5-4

Yes the burdens Sec 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 no longer responsive to the current conditions in the voting districts in question

the burden was legal in the 60s and 70s but today is no longer necessary