Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court of the United States

PDF

Vanderbilt Law Review

1994

Federalism

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Symposium: Federalism's Future, Jeffrey R. Pettit Oct 1994

Symposium: Federalism's Future, Jeffrey R. Pettit

Vanderbilt Law Review

Two years have passed since my predecessor, Mike Smith, sat in Professor Barry Friedman's office to begin choosing a topic for the Symposium that now sits before you. Although choosing a topic for a symposium two years in advance of its occurrence can be a difficult task, the topic they agreed upon, Federalism's Future, transcends the risk of becoming outdated. If the Supreme Court's struggle to articulate a "reasoned principle" in balancing the powers and responsibilities of our state and federal governments in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, and later in New York v. United States,2 is any …


Why The Supreme Court Overruled "National League Of Cities", Mark Tushnet Oct 1994

Why The Supreme Court Overruled "National League Of Cities", Mark Tushnet

Vanderbilt Law Review

We are now in the midst of a confused era for federalism doctrine. A court of appeals has read the Supreme Court's precedents for at least as much as they are worth in holding that Congress, in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, exceeded the power the Commerce Clause grants it., The Supreme Court itself has been unable to develop a stable constitutional doctrine about the roles of Congress and the courts in protecting federalism. Every time the Supreme Court has wandered into the federalism forest, it has gotten lost. For a while, scholars believed we understood why. …


Federalism, Untamed, Ann Althouse Oct 1994

Federalism, Untamed, Ann Althouse

Vanderbilt Law Review

Do you rankle at those amorphous rhapsodies about "Our Federalism" indulged in by judges who relegate civil rights litigants to state courts?' Why would anyone see cases in which state officials stand charged of violating the rights of individuals as presenting an occasion for deference to the states? If federal rights take precedence over state policies and practices, is it not perverse to prefer adjudication in the courts that have the strongest bias in favor of state interests? If jurisdiction is a duty and declining jurisdiction consequently a dubious business, shouldn't we reject judge-made doctrine and statutory interpretation that restrict …