GENERALLY **Remember: effect-result affect-impact
McCulloch v. Maryland
Powers- powers given to Fed. Govt. By Constitution
Means- how govt. goes about implementing those powers
Marshall – Great Powers don’t draw inferior powers, but all powers do need to have the means to establish that power.
E.g.: post office
States can not tax Fed. Govt. b/c it results in taxation w/out representation.
COMMERCE
Reno v. Condon (2000) – Controlling
(Upheld Fed. law limiting commercial vending of personal data by states.)
Found:
Governed by South Carolina v. Baker
Personal information is “thing in commerce” within meaning of Lopez
Doesn’t require state to enact laws or regulation
Doesn’t require sate officials to assist in enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals
Don’t address whether general applicability is a requirement for federal regulation of states because DPPA is generally applicable (It applies to both individuals and the states not just the state, bottom p. 196.)
Printz v. U.S.(1997) – Controlling
(Struck down Brady Bill provisions commanding Chief Law Enforcement Officers to conduct background checks and related tasks. Deals w/ State Executives.)
Held:
Federal govt. cannot force participation of executive state officers in the administration of a federal program
Federal govt. has only imposed duties on executive officers in the direct implementation of the Constitution itself, p.187.
The Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty. This is reflected throughout its text in e.g.s which are listed in first full paragraph p. 189.
This separation of powers is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.
Allowing Fed. control of state officers would violate Art. II Sec. 3 b/c the Executive is in effect transferring his responsibility to state executives that are not under the branches control.
Cite New York v. U.S., p. 188 & 190 – “Fed. Govt. may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program”.
Because Executive functions require policy making, including his one, it cannot be said that in this case the state is not being required to make policy (or make law) but just enforce or implement the law.
NOTE: Testa v. Katt – stands for provision that states cannot refust to apply federal and is therefore not applicable in this case.
Requiring state officials to implement tasks specified by Congress diminishes the state’s accountability (if not their funds) with voters while protecting the Fed. Govt.s.
The state can not circumvent the prohibition decided in the holding in New York, that Congress cannot compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program, by conscripting the state’s officers directly.
Did Not Find:
Whether purely ministerial reporting requirements imposed by Congress on a state, pursuant to Commerce Clause powers, are similarly invalid. (e.g. reporting cases of missing children).
New York v. United States(1992) – Controlling
(Partially upheld Fed. act requiring states to provide for disposal of radioactive waste generated within their borders –providing incentives – listed on p. 180. Deals w/ State Legislatures.)
Found:
Congress can encourage states to provide for disposal of waste but cannot compel them to do so.
NOTE: 2 ways to view Federalism Questions, 1) Article I & 2) 10th Amend. (p.180)
If power is delegated to Congress, the 10th Amend. Expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the states.
State legislatures are not subject to federal direction like individuals are (i.e. the Govt. can directly regulate U.S. citizens through Commerce power.)
Fed. Govt. may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, but they can provide incentives for them to do so through Spending Clause power.
Sates can choose whether they will regulate the activity according to federal standards or have the Fed. Govt. regulate it and preempt state law (bottom p. 181).
Requiring states to take title of waste or regulate it according to Congress’ instructions is not a choice b/c either “choice” “commandeers states into the service of Fed. Govt. purposes, (top p. 183).
States can’t agree to let the Fed. Govt. act unconstitutionally y exceeding its authority.
U.S. v. Morrison(2000) – Controlling
(Struck down a Fed. code providing a civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence.)
tes and private business is that “state is an element in the system the framers developed for governing our federal union,” p. 172.
Cannot regulate state as employer b/c it impairs the states to function effectively.
Forced compliance of the act would impose adverse effects on the states:
Increased costs would significantly impact function of states.
cause states to reduce training and services due to increased employment costs
states only left w/choice of increasing budget or reducing # of employees
Changes the traditional ways in which states govern themselves b/c they are penalized for choosing to hire employees on different terms than Congress sought to impose.
Provisions interfere with the integral functions of the states b/c they have traditionally mandated these things in accordance with their needs.
Fry is distinguished b/c it did not remake state choices of wage scales and employment relationships, it merely froze states decisions and interfered with states’ freedom for a specific period of time, to combat a national emergency.
Writz & U.S. v. California Overruled.
N.Y. v. U.S. (1946)
(Upheld Fed. tax to NY’s sale of bottled water from state owned springs.)
Found:
· Congress can tax source of revenue that is earned by “whomsoever”, not uniquely capable of being earned only by a state.
· A federal tax that is nondiscriminatory can still interfere with a state’s performance of its sovereign functions as a govt. and be found unconstitutional.
· Dissent à a state’s project, traditional or akin to private enterprise and conducted for profit is still a legitimate govt. function. States should be able to decide what is essential activity for their economy.
U.S. v. California (1936)
(Upheld a penalty on state-owned R.R. for violation of Fed. Safety Appliance Act.)
Found:
State sovereignty is diminished to
