About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 49 (2002-2003)
The Role of the Judiciary in Preserving Federalism

handle is hein.journals/geojlap1 and id is 53 raw text is: The Role of the Judiciary in Preserving Federalism JONATHAN H. ADLER* The Supreme Court's revival of federalism is the most important develop- ment in constitutional law of the past decade. The Constitution creates a federal government of limited and enumerated powers. Each branch of government bears some responsibility for maintaining the limits of federal power. The judiciary, however, has a particularly important role to play, as judicial review provides an essential safeguard against governmental excess. Where Congress or the Executive oversteps the constitutional bounds, it is the responsibility of federal courts to say so. Judicial review is no less important for the preservation of federalism than for the direct protection of individual rights. The Rehnquist Court's initial forays into federalism were a surprise to some. The New Deal revolution eviscerated most limits on federal power. The Inter- state Commerce Clause,' for example, was transmuted into a plenary federal police power. With a polite nod to our dual system of government,'2 the Supreme Court upheld one expansive statute after another, until there was little, if anything, beyond the reach of the enumerated powers. Well through the 1980s, with few exceptions, the Supreme Court showed little interest in policing the division of state and federal power. Beginning in 1992, however, the Court reversed course. In New York v. United States,3 the court struck down portions Of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 19854 for infringing upon state power. The Court held that Congress did not have the authority to commandeer state legislatures. Three years later, the Court reaffirmed this indication that the interstate commerce power had limits. In United States v. Lopez,5 the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 19906 for exceeding the scope of Congress' enumerated power to regulate commerce among the several states. Possessing a gun in or near a school was neither commercial nor interstate, and therefore beyond the reach of the national legislature.7 Subsequent cases reaf- firmed the principles that federal power is limited and that enforcing such limits is a proper subject for judicial review.8 Previous Courts had acted as though the federal courts had no role at all in policing the limits of federal power. Justice Blackmun in Garcia v. San Antonio * Assistant Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law. 1. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. 2. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 37 (1937). 3. 505 U.S. 144 (1992). 4. 42 U.S.C. § 2021 (1985). 5. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). 6. 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) (Supp. V 1988). 7. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 567. 8. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most