A Revolution of Devolution
High Court revolutionaries Seek to Weaken Federal Powers
Jan. 12- You probably haven’t heard your neighbors talking about it
over the fence. Your favorite coffee shop probably is not buzzing with the
news.
But black- robed revolutionaries are at work challenging the authority of the federal government, granting it power and paring down its power as they see fit. The coup is under way in the chambers of the highest court in the land.
In
a series of rulings over the past several years, the Supreme Court has revived
the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states all rights not
delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. The court handed down
a significant ruling Tuesday in an age bias case that strips away power from
In another decision handed down today, the court ruled that Congress could prevent states from selling driver’s license data because the law was within congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
But the balance of federalism rulings in recent years has fallen in favor of the states. Although advocates of a leaner federal government hail the recent decisions that cement states’ rights, others see the trend as a weakening of citizens’ ability to seek legal remedies in federal courts or protections under federal laws.
The debate over federalism, of course, is not new. The term “federalism” refers to the balance of power between states and a central government created by the Founding Fathers.
But the balance of federalism rulings in recent years has fall in favor of the states. Although advocates of a leaner federal government hail the recent decisions that cement states’ rights, other see the trend as a weakening of the citizens’ ability to seek legal remedies in a federal courts or protections under federal laws.
The debate over federalism, of course, is not new. The term “federalism” refers to the balance of power between states and a central government created by the founding fathers.
But the court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist in recent years has give modern federalism its movement its driving force. Court watchers say the trend is the most important development in years and will be Rehnquist’s legacy.
Indeed, the so-called revolution of devolution will likely impact the political, social, and legal landscape for years to come, including future supreme court selections.
“While abortion seems to be failing away as a litmus test for court nominees ,” says Jonathan Truley, professor of law at the George Washington university law center ,”it is likely the next administration will take a keen interest in a nominee’s view of federalism.”
Staying Their Course
Tuesdays ruling shows how the federalism cases, while not seeming at first glance relevant to our everyday lives, could have immense effect on us all.
In
cases in
The age bias case has serious implications to the older employees seeking legal remedy for discrimination. And it is also adds a new dimension to the “federal revolution”. It was the first time the federal court has shielded the stats against a federal lawsuit by employees that claim to be victims of discrimination.
For those who were wondering if the justice would draw the line on the states’ rights revolt at discrimination law , the age bias case showed how far they are willing to go .
“There was considerable speculation as to wearer the Supreme Court was going to correct its coarse from the last term and steer away from a rigid federalism approach,” Turly said. Kimel indicates that the Supreme Court is in fact staying that course and continuing to make in roads into what was once thought to be a stable aria.”
The court gave further clarity to its course today’s unanimous decision in the south Carolina case that asked whether Congress can prevent from selling citizens’ personal drivers’ licensed data.
“ the federal Government correctly asserted that the [Drivers Privacy Protection Act] is a proper exercise
of congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce under the commerce clause,” wrote chief justice
Rehnquist. “it does not require
and more skirmish on states rights are on the way this term that will even further frame the debate . the court has a handful of other federalism cases on the docket including one argued Tuesday that bares similarity to the drivers license case.
In Brzonkala vs. Morrison, the court must decide whether a provision of a federal law that allows victims of gender related crimes to sue their attackers in federal court in part derived from congress’ belief that such affect interstate commerce – is an unconstitutional overstep of congress power.
Revolution has Thin Ranks
Although many court observers have declared that a revolution is under way, the upheaval is moving forward with thin ranks. All the major recent federalism decisions- except for the unanimous drivers’ license ruling- have been split 5-4. And the majority favorable to states’ rights could slip in the rape lawsuit case.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the age discrimationtion for the majority, is considered a swing vote in the Brzonkala case. O’Connor is being watched to see which of her allegiances will win out: states’ rights or women’s rights.
And there are still a handful of justices who have dependably dissented in the string of recent pro-states’ rights cases.
In his dissenting opinion in the age bias case, for example, Justice John Paul Stevens seemed skeptical of the federalism revolution. He wrote: “Congress can use its broad range of flexible legislative tools to approach the delicate issue of how to balance local and national interests in the most responsive and careful manner.
“It is quite evident, therefore, that the Framers did not view his Court as the ultimate guardian of the States’ interest in protecting their own sovereignty from impairment by ‘burdensome’ federal laws.”
Indeed, court observers say that while the court’s recent federalism decisions are significant by any measure, with a series of 5-4 votes, it would only take one changed mind- or one new justice- to turn the tide.