Federalism.
Publié le 10/05/2013
Extrait du document
«
the Commerce Clause during the New Deal in the 1930s.
The New Deal, which President Franklin Roosevelt created to confront the country’s economic depression,included laws affecting nearly every home and workplace.
The Supreme Court upheld most of Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives, including laws setting minimum standardsfor pay and working conditions, protecting labor unions, and regulating farm production.
After World War II (1939-1945), national authority under the Commerce Clausecontinued to grow.
The action of Congress against racial segregation stands as the most important expansion of national power in the postwar period.
Some Southern states argued thatthe Tenth Amendment gave them the right to maintain segregation and that Congress had no authority to interfere in purely local matters.
In 1964 the Supreme Courtruled in Heart of Atlanta Hotel v.
United States that despite the rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment, Congress had the authority to bar segregation because it could harm interstate commerce.
The authority of the federal government has also grown as a result of a more gradual increase in power at all levels of government in the United States.
Since theConstitution was adopted in 1789, national, state, and local governments all have assumed more powers and duties.
They have been forced to do so by the increase inpopulation, the growth of cities and towns, the rise of huge industries, and the ever-growing need for better roads, railways, and communication systems.
Once strictlylocal, problems such as crime and transportation have become national issues.
Many experts defend the growth in power of the federal government in the United States.
They insist that the public interest demands federal control in cases involvingmore than one state.
Other experts fear that the continued expansion of federal authority over state and local matters will create an inefficient and possibly dangerousconcentration of power in federal hands.
When conflicts arise, the courts must decide how to balance states’ rights with the needs of the nation.
Although federal courts tend to take a broad view of nationalpowers, in the early and mid-1990s the Supreme Court issued several rulings that curtailed congressional power over the states.
In 1992, for example, the court ruledthat Congress could not require states to make laws controlling radioactive waste.
The Court issued another important decision in 1997, ruling that Congress could notcompel local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun buyers.
In 1999 the Court issued a series of rulings that further shifted power from the federal government to the states.
In three 5-to-4 decisions that reflected the justices’deep divisions over how to balance state and federal powers, the Court strengthened the principle of sovereign immunity, which gives states immunity from lawsuitsarising from violations of federal law.
In one case, the Court ruled that state employees cannot sue states for overtime wages due to them under federal labor laws.
Inthe two other cases, the Court ruled that businesses cannot sue states in federal court for patent infringement or false advertising claims that violate federal law.
In asimilar decision in 2000, the Court ruled that states cannot be sued for violating a federal age-discrimination law.
In 2001 the Court ruled that state employees cannotsue states for money damages based on employment-discrimination violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
Combined with earlier rulings, the decisionsreduced the ability of individuals to sue states for violating federal law.
Contributed By:Roger H.
DavidsonMicrosoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved..
»
↓↓↓ APERÇU DU DOCUMENT ↓↓↓