Friday, April 3, 2009

10th Amendment, and Making Love

These next two cases illuminate interpretations of the 10th amendment (state sovereignty) from the 1990s.

New York v. United States (1992)

Facts
Back in the mid 1980s, we started to generate a lot of low level toxic waste. The original plan required any party who created toxic waste to dispose of it. The problem was that corporations would dissolve and there would be no one left to manage disposal.

Under commerce clause power, Congress attempted to force each state to create a site for handling its own toxic waste. There were three parts to this legislation.

1. Money- Congress created a chronologically escalating tax for shipping toxic waste across state lines. Those funds would go mostly to states that had created dumping facilities of their own.

2. Access- Congress vowed to gradually restrict and ultimately block shipping access to other states.

3. Take Title- When a state was left with toxic waste that could not be moved or disposed of, the state assumed title for the waste. On these grounds, the state was legally responsible for the consequences of maintaining toxic waste.

Question
Does Congress have the ability to regulate in these ways under the 10th amendment?

Holding
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No

Reasoning
1. Congress can tax and put conditions on the money it gives out. Duh, the taxing power.
2. Congress has almost unlimited control over the channels of interstate commerce.
3. “Congress may not commandeer state legislatures and force them to regulate in a certain way.”

Reno v. Condon (2000)
The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act prevented states from selling information they obtained from driver’s licenses

Question
Can Congress regulate the states in this way?

Holding
Yes

Reasoning
Congress is negating an activity (selling driver’s information), not requiring an activity.

...So, Congress has some power over state and local legislatures.

Congress also has some power over state and local courts. For example, state courts are expected to uphold Supreme Court rulings on federal laws.

The state executive branch appears to be the most secure from Congressional interference, as evidenced by today’s final case…

Printz v. United States (1997)
The Brady Bill required states to carry out instant background checks for handguns.

Question
Can Congress commandeer the executive power of the states in this way?

Answer
No

Reasoning
The short answer is FEDERALISM! The longer answer is…well, I don’t know. They just can’t.

Notes
As far as I can tell, reasoning in Constitutional Law cases tend to be weak. Even when the same basic question is answered differently in different generations, the reasoning is often just a restatement of the question and holding. Or, “The Constitution says so.” Or, my personal favorite, "Cause I'm Alexander Hamilton, suckas. I came here to do two things: make love, and preserve federalism...Looks like I've pretty much preserved federalism."*

*I was paraphrasing Alexander Hamilton. He may not have used those exact words.

I realize that's the beauty of the Constitution - and our government - but it makes for pretty boring reading.

And the winner is…
The Hammer wins! He always wins!

summarized from Life of a Law Student

No comments: