Suchergebnisse

The Supreme Court's revival of federalism as a limit on national power has roots, in part, in the court's mistrust of the national legislative process & its sense of institutional competition with Congress. To the extent that the Court is concerned about careless legislating, six rules of "care & craft" in drafting legislation are proposed for members of Congress to consider: develop a factual record, reflect the source of constitutional authority, tailor the statute to reach "national" & not "local" matters, consider the implications of decentralized enforcement for surviving constitutional challenges as well as for efficacy, consider whether state governments are treated comparably to the federal government, & be particularly cautious in efforts to overrule the effects of the Court's decisions. To the extent the Court is concerned with its own institutional prerogatives, however, or is committed to a categorical divide between areas constitutionally committed to the states & the federal government, care & craft alone will not be a solution. 28 References. Adapted from the source document.

DURING ITS 1988 TERM, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED TWO IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT, WHICH GENERALLY PROTECTS STATES FROM BEING SUED IN FEDERAL COURTS. FIRST THE COURT HELD THAT THE CONGRESS HAS POWER TO ABROGATE STATES' IMMUNITY FROM SUIT. SECOND, THE COURT MADE CLEAR THAT ABORGATION WOULD BE FOUND ONLY WHERE THE TEXT OF THE STATUTE ITSELF CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY SO PROVIDED. THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES THESE DECISIONS, AND ANALYZES SOME OF THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL FEDERALISM.