Since 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence, with one important exception, has continued to recognize the extensive authority of the national government. The Court has established the primary contours of the intergovernmental network. The sorts of federalism questions it now confronts usually concern the implementation of policies. The principal question, then, is not whether the national government can act but whether it can act in a certain way. This focus upon administration, rather than political principles underlying administration, has led to the development of a jurisprudence of intergovernmental affairs rather than federalism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. John W. Winkle III, “Dimensions of Judicial Federalism,”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 416:67-76 (Nov. 1974).
2.
See also John Kincaid, “The State of American Federalism - 1987,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 18:5-8 (Summer 1988).
3.
3. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist Papers (New York: New American Library, 1961), no. 37, p. 227.
4.
4. Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention 1787 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1911), 1:258.
5.
5. Jonathan Elliott, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1836), 2:355-356.
6.
6. Federalist Papers, no. 45, pp. 290-291.
7.
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations , Regulatory Federalism: Policy, Process, Impact and Reform (Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1984).
8.
8. See, for example, Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824); Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833).
9.
9. 426 U.S. 833, 49 L.Ed. 2d. 245 (1976).
10.
10. Ibid., pp. 248-60.
11.
11. Ibid.
12.
12. Ibid., p. 260.
13.
13. Ibid., pp. 260-75.
14.
14. 469 U.S. 528, 556 (1985).
15.
15. Ibid., p. 560 (Powell dissenting).
16.
16. Ibid., p. 588 (O'Connor dissenting).
17.
Lawrence A. Hunter and Ronald J. Oakerson, “An Intellectual Crisis in American Federalism: The Meaning of Garcia,” ibid., p. 33.
18.
18. South Carolina v. Baker, 108 S.Ct. 1355 (1988).
19.
19. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65-66 (1936).
20.
20. See Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
21.
21. 451 U.S. 1 (1981) n. 13.
22.
22. 107 S.Ct. 2793.
23.
23. Ibid.
24.
24. Ibid. See also Sarah F. Liebschutz, “The National Minimum Drinking-Age Law,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 15:39 (Summer 1985).
25.
25. See Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lucite, 105 S.Ct. 1904 (1985); Salomon v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Co., No. 85-1835 (4th Circuit, 1986); Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956); International Longshoreman's Assn. v. Davis, 106 S.Ct. 1904 (1986); FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (1982); Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46 (1981); EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983); Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 106 S.Ct. 1395 (1986).
26.
Relations Com'n of Missouri, U.S. Mo., 107 S.Ct. 821; CTS Corporation v. Dynamics Corporation of America, et al., 107 S.Ct. 1637 (1987).
27.
27. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 57 U.S.L.W. 5023 (3 July 1989).
28.
See also Eric S. Rosengren, “State Restrictions of Hostile Takeovers,”Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 18:67 (Summer 1988).
29.
29. See John Kincaid, ed., State Constitutions in a Federal System, vol. 496, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Mar. 1988).
