Federalism Comparison Essay, Research Paper

Diego Ochoa PSCI 499 5/29/00 Second Midterm The Constitution of the United States was drafted at a time when our country was in dire need of many answers to political and social questions. In addition to many other things, the drafters of the Constitution were concerned with solidifying our central government and the Constitution was intended to provide a solid structure from which our burgeoning nation could grow. The Constitution gave explicit powers to the federal government and provided the states with the Tenth Amendment which states ,”Powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states respectively…” Of the enumerated powers given to the federal government by the Constitution, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause as prescribed in Article I, section 8, has caused political and legal controversy known to our nation. In part, Article I, section 8, gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between states, with other nations and with Indian Tribes. Two competing theories about federalism inform the political and legal debates that deal with the Commerce Clause provided to the Congress by the Constitution. Dual Federalism, a political theory that purports states rights, champions the view that federal and state powers, as prescribed by the Constitution, are “mutually exclusive, conflicting, and antagonistic.” (Ducat,p.271) This view suggests that the Constitution created dual sovereigns and that both levels of government had their own responsibilities. In order to understand what the legal ramification of dualist theory, one must first understand its interpretations of the Constitution. The dualist approach requires an exact and strict interpretation of the enumerated powers given to the national government by the Constitution and rejects the idea that the Necessary and Proper Clause should be used to enhance or augment the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution. Dual Federalism also relies on the notion that in a court of law, the Tenth Amendment gives the states enough support to declare unconstitutional any act of the national government that infringes on the reserved powers given to the states. Cooperative Federalism provides an entirely different view of the relationship between the federal and state governments. Federal supremacy is the hallmark of this ideology. Supporters of the cooperative federalist view prefer to employ a broad interpretation of the Constitution. The legal basis on which cooperative federalism has been argued is threefold: (1) Enumerated powers (e.g. Commerce Clause) should be interpreted in light of an expansive Necessary and Proper Clause (2) The Supremacy Clause, as prescribed in Article 6, paragraph 2, gives federal actions supremacy over state laws when made in pursuance of the Constitution and when they are made using implied and enumerated powers (3) The Tenth Amendment does not give states the power to contest federal laws. To suggest that that these two ideologies are contradictory is an understatement. To understand which theory best identifies with the correct interpretation of the Constitution, it is necessary to understand the circumstances that created the necessity for a Constitution and the political circumstances that motivated decisions contrary to the correct interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution was drafted as a response to the perils of the weak central government created by the Articles of Confederation. The drafters instituted a system that was meant to empower the national government to make laws. Furthermore, the Constitution reinforced the supremacy of the national government by including the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Constitution merely provided states with reserved powers, a distinction that suggests a passive rather than active right. Supreme Court decisions that challenge the supremacy of the national government, when an action by the national government is made in pursuance of the Constitution, are merely attempts to curb the power of the national government and are based on weak legal arguments. Ultimately, the theory that best reflects the needs of our country at the time of the Constitutional Convention and still does now is that of cooperative federalism. Gibbons v Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, illustrates perfectly the ideological beliefs held by cooperative federalists. The case involves the issue of federal authority versus state authority. New York State legislature passed a statute giving exclusive rights to use steam vessels in its territory to two men who later received payment from Ogden in order to have exclusivity to navigate a certain route. Thomas Gibbons sailed the waters with a federal license and Ogden successfully petitioned the courts for an injunction that would prohibit Gibbons from sailing the route. The Supreme Court made several remarks in its reversal of the injunction that directly support the ideas behind cooperative federalism. “It has been said that these powers (enumerated) ought to be construed strictly…Congress is authorized to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper…this limitation on the means which may be used is not extended to the powers which are conferred; nor is there one sentence in the constitution…that prescribes this rule. That narrow construction would cripple the government…we cannot perceive the propriety of this strict construction, nor adopt it.”(Ducat,pp.277-278) As evidenced by this statement, the decision rejected the primary tenet of the dualist theory, which requires a strict reading of the Constitution. The decision gave an expanded meaning to the word commerce, an issue that would gain relevance in future cases (i.e. Lottery Case). The decision also cemented that completely internal commerce, which does not affect other states, was an area reserved for the state itself. This remark created a particularly pro-cooperative federalism effect. In order for states to claim the right to regulate under the Tenth Amendment, it would be necessary for the state to prove that the issue, whatever it may be, did not affect the commerce of another state, a test that has proven difficult to pass. Meanwhile, the political effects of the Gibbons v Ogden case was evident in subsequent decisions. One such example is that of the United States v E.C. Knight Co. 156 U.S. 1. The case involved the Sherman Antitrust Act, which intended to restrain monopolies. In this case, the United States argued that the consolidation of 98% of all the sugar refined in America constituted a monopoly. Seventy years after Gibbons v Ogden, the Supreme Court now led by dual federalists erroneously, the began making it difficult for Congress to apply anti-trust laws. Prior to this decision there was no legal precedent on national intervention in the area of production. This case laid the foundation for future cases that would limit the jurisdiction of the national government to areas of economic distribution. A strict reading of the enumerated power given to Congress and an outright neglect of the Necessary and Proper Clause informed this decision. The decision in the case was more about a political desire to check the power of the national government rather than a close interpretation of the Constitution as it related to congressional powers. In Hammer v Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, the Supreme Court relied on the dualist approach used in its decision in the E.C. Knight Co. case. Here the Supreme Court began to separate economic functions between what was under state control. Using a narrow approach, the court ruled that mining, agriculture and manufacturing were out of federal jurisdiction and that any law made in reference to these methods would be unconstitutional. As such, the 1916 Federal Child Labor Act was deemed unconstitutional because it attempted to impede interstate commerce on grounds that were outside its jurisdiction. The law made it unlawful to transport goods on interstate roads that were made in places that violated the guidelines set by the act. This decision and other dualist aligned decisions clearly evoke the obvious signs that the Justices involved in writing the decisions were strongly influenced by the prospect of an expanding economy. The idea that government control in areas of commerce would impede the economic growth was something that the dualist court could not accept. As such, the court paid more attention to the political/social atmosphere than it did to the intentions of the Constitution. The court ruled that matters between employers and employees were of local nature in the Carter v Carter Coal Co. 298 U.S. 238. Perhaps the most vigorously anti-national decision among those discussed in this essay, this decision held that national jurisdiction would be based on the type of activity that was in question. Rather than follow the example set by Gibbons v Ogden, the court chose to divide the responsibility of governing different segments of the economic process by separating distribution and production. This division has come to symbolize everything that is political about the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has not always exhibited the ability to exert its jurisprudence in favor of cooperative federalism with an even hand. The Supreme Court expanded the meaning of commerce when it ruled in The Lottery Case (Champion v Ames 188 U.S. 321) that commerce included the movement of people, traffic, services and goods that cross state lines. This broadened definition gave the national government so-called police powers because the national government created laws under the scope of the Commerce Clause (e.g. Hipolite Egg Co. v US, Reid v Colorado). The Shreveport Case (Houston East & West Railway Co. v United States 234 U.S. 342), involved the lowering of intrastate railroad rates aimed at encouraging trade between Texans, at the expense of businesses in Shreveport, Louisiana. The court held that the discriminatory actions of the Texas Railroad Commission could be overruled by standards set by the Interstate Commerce Commission, an agency created by Congress. The decision further exerted the supremacy of the national government. The Supreme Court revisited its pro-cooperative federalism stance with its decision in the Stafford v Wallace 258 U.S. 495 case, involving the monopolizing tactics of five meat packers, advanced the idea that Congress could create laws to prevent companies from taking advantage of consumers. The only issue at hand is whether or not the livestock grown entirely in one state becomes interstate when it is shipped out. The court ruled that it was interstate commerce. Here we see that the Supreme Court has ruled again according to the correct interpretation of the Constitution. The effects of the Great Depression and President Roosevelt’s influence on the Supreme Court, created a new ideology on the court as it related to what areas of commerce were under federal jurisdiction. The National Labor Relations Board v Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, introduced the test that held all commercial activities that had a substantial impact on interstate commerce were under federal jurisdiction. The court ruled that unfair labor practices by the Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation could be remedied by the provisions of the NLRB created by Congress. United States v Darby, 312 U.S. 100, directly contradicted Hammer v Daggenhart and stated that the power of Congress is ,”Complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent and… that power can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power.”(Ducat,pp.331) This decision also set the minimum wage. Both of these decisions dealt with commercial activity and as such they are both aligned with the correct interpretation of the Constitution. Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, is a case involving the limitation of wheat harvest imposed on a family farmer by the Secretary of Agriculture. Filburn refused to pay a tax on wheat he harvested that overran the allotted acreage allowed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Here the court ruled that government had the right to fine Filburn because his production and consumption of the excess wheat had an adverse effect on interstate commerce. The fact that the wheat was never entered into interstate commerce was deemed irrelevant in light of the new test (whether or not it had an effect) offered by the court. Consumers were at issue in the Heart of Atlanta Motel v United State,s 379 U.S. 241, in a case that involved the refusal of a room to transient blacks based on the color of their skin. The court ruled that the proximity of the motel to interstate highways, the existing courting of transient guests, and the rate of transient guests all made the motels refusal open to national jurisdiction. In keeping with the cooperative federalism theory, the court chose to utilize a broad interpretation of the enumerated powers given to Congress by the Constitution. United States v Lopez ,514 U.S. 549, reinstated some dualist approaches. The case dealt with Gun Free Zones Act that was enacted by Congress under the Commerce Clause powers. The decision injected a strict reading of the Constitution. The merit of the argument is that in cases that authorized national control in intrastate activities ,”Involved economic activity in a way that possession of a gun in a school zone does not.” (Ducat,pp.339) I believe this interpretation to be indicative of the intention of the Constitution. The decision rejected the expansion of Commerce Clause powers into areas that had nothing to do with economic activity. The Supreme Court has exhibited the ability to act in accordance with the most correct interpretation of the Constitution, which can be described as a cooperative federalist approach. However, there have been times when the court has failed to follow the intentions of the Constitution. Those cases are: (1) U.S. v E.C. Knight (2) Hammer v Dagenhart (3) Carter v Carter Coal Co. Surprisingly, U.S. v Lopez does not fall under this category. Though the decision limited the scope of congressional power, it remained true to the idea that the national government can exert its powers exclusively when made under its implied and enumerated powers. The statement made in the midterm prompt suggested that the court decisions regarding the Commerce Clause were shaped by two interrelated factors—the scope of congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the power of the state to regulate under the Tenth Amendment. This statement is correct in the sense that the cases are influenced by these factors. However, it fails to give attention to the fact that, invariably in the three decisions that gave states more rights, a need to curb national government supremacy was a more important factor than the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, the dual federalist approach was not the major factor either because the three aforementioned cases were all decided more as a response to the expansion of national supremacy than a desire to exert states rights. The Supreme Court has not always been capable of following the correct interpretation of the Constitution because of the effects of prior cases and political influences. In order to do so in the future, the Supreme Court need only remember that the constitution was meant to– enhance national government power, the national government is supreme when its laws are made in the pursuance of the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment gives the states a passive and not aggressive power.

Bibliography

Some Book I Read