Docstoc

176-197

Document Sample
176-197 Powered By Docstoc
					5656Does the Tenth Amendment Limit Congress’ Authority?  Gregory v. Ashcroft: held that a federal law will be applied to important state government activities only if there is a clear statement from Congress that the law was meant to apply o Court used the Tenth Amendment and federalism considerations as a rule of construction o Federal law that imposes a substantial burden on state government will be applied only if Congress clearly indicated that it wanted the law to apply o O’Connor wrote for the court discussed the importance of autonomous state governments as a check on possible federal tyranny and stressed the significance of the Tenth Amendment as a constitutional protector of state sovereignty o Used the Tenth Amendment to invalidate federal laws  New York v. United States: while Congress has substantial power under the Constitution to encourage the States to provide for the disposal of the radioactive waste generated within their borders, the Constitution does not confer upon Congress the ability simply to compel the States to do so o Issue: whether Congress may direct or otherwise motivate the States to regulate in a particular field or a particular way o Act: Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985  Provides 3 incentives for states to dispose of their radioactive waste  Monetary Incentives to encourage opening waste sites  Access Incentives allowing states without sites to be denied access to other states sites  Take Title provision: if a state does not dispose of their waste, upon request of the generator or owner of the waste, the State shall take title to the waste and will be liable for all damages directly or indirectly incurred by such generator or owner  deemed unconstitutional under principles of federalism o If a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the States; if a power is an attribute of state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment, it is necessarily a power the Constitution has not conferred on Congress  Tenth Amendment requires the court to determine whether an incident of state sovereignty is protected by a limitation on the Article I power o Congress may hold out incentives to the States as a method of influencing a State’s policy choices  Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds  Such conditions must bear some relationship to the purpose of the federal spending





Congress has power to offer States the choice of regulating that activating according to federal standards of having state law preempted by federal regulation o Dissents problem with the opinion:  Builds its rule around an unsupportable and illogical distinction in the types of alleged incursions on state sovereignty  Derives its rule from cases that do not support its analysis  Fails to apply the appropriate tests from the cases on which it purposes to base its rule  Omits any discussion of the most recent and pertinent test for determining the take title provision’s constitutionality Printz v. United States: Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly o Act: Brady Handgun Violence Prevent Act: interim measures, commands state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks  Act purports to direct law enforcement officers to participate in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme o Constitution was understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions as those prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power o Madison expressed the separation and equilibrium of powers between the three branches of government  The Brady Act transfer the responsible to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 states, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control Reno v. Condon: enacting this Statutes Congress did not run afoul of the federalism principles enunciated in NY and Printz o Act: Drivers Privacy Protection Act of 1994: regulates the disclosure of personal information contained in the records of DMVs  Establishes a regulatory scheme that restricts the States’ ability to disclose a driver’s personal information without driver’s consent o Case doesn’t violate the Tenth Amendment because:  DPPA doesn’t require the States in their sovereign capacity to regulate their own citizens  Regulates States as the owners of databases  Does not require SC legislature to enact any laws or regulations  Does not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals




				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Tags:
Stats:
views:65
posted:12/3/2008
language:English
pages:2