Constitutional scholars Christopher P. Banks and John C. Blakeman offer the most current and the first book-length study of the U.S. Supreme Court's "new federalism" begun by the Rehnquist Court and now flourishing under Chief Justice John Roberts. While the Rehnquist Court reinvorgorated new federalism by protecting state sovereignty and set new constitutional limits on federal power, Banks and Blakeman show that in the Roberts Court new federalism continues to evolve in a docket increasingly attentive to statutory construction, preemption, and business litigation

This book examines leading Supreme Court decisions involving the powers of the Court, the president, and Congress, as well as cases addressing American federalism and Americans’ economic rights. By analyzing both the Court’s opinions and voting patterns from 1791 through 2018, this volume presents an overview of the role of the Supreme Court in the legal and political system of the United States throughout its entire history, regularly relying on Robert McCloskey’s theory of the nation’s three major constitutional eras and the Supreme Court Database in its organizational approach. Over 100 of the Supreme Court's most significant rulings, old and new, are covered and clarified in this volume to provide an objective, reliable, and valuable resource for students, academics, legal professionals, and the general public alike.

In the last decade, the Supreme Court has handed down a remarkable series of decisions invalidating congressional legislation in the name of federalism or states' rights. Most of these were decided by a razor-thin majority of five justices. The cases fall into four categories. First, in two cases the Court reaffirmed and expanded the principle of state sovereign immunity. In a second pair of cases, the Court held that state governments (other than their courts) cannot be "commandeered" by Congress to assist in the enforcement of federal law. Third, for the first time since the early New Deal, the Curt, but the familiar 5-4 margin, invalidated a federal statute enacted pursuant to the interstate commerce clause. Finally, the Court adopted a new, and extremely demanding, standard of review for congressional action under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which empowers Congress to "enforce" the amendment "by appropriate legislation." The 13 articles in this volume of The Annals deal with the various aspects of the Supreme Court's federalist revival and the principles underlying it. The first three articles discuss these principles in comprehensive terms. Each of the next three articles focuses on a particular aspect of the federalism principle or its judicial enforcement. These articles are followed by a contribution with regard to Congress' ability to escape the constitutional limitations of federalism by means of conditional grants under the spending clause. The next three articles point up alternative themes, purposes, or agendas in the Court's federalism decisions. Another two contributions focus on the anti-commandeering issue, but place that issue in a broader context. The final article illuminates, from several perspectives, the four-year-old federal habeas corpus statute (the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act). The Supreme Court's recent decision in Bush v. Gore - issued shortly before this volume went to press - dramatically reverses the case and principles that are the subject of the articles in this volume. Perhaps the best justification for the Court's action is not legal but political. The majority justices - or some of them - may have looked down the road and seen a constitutional catastrophe in the making. Unfortunately, there is also a less benign explanation: one or more of the justices may have reached the conclusion that if the presidential outcome were going to be determined by an act of judicial will, it would be their will, and not that of the Florida Supreme Court.

Black & white print. American Government 3e aligns with the topics and objectives of many government courses. Faculty involved in the project have endeavored to make government workings, issues, debates, and impacts meaningful and memorable to students while maintaining the conceptual coverage and rigor inherent in the subject. With this objective in mind, the content of this textbook has been developed and arranged to provide a logical progression from the fundamental principles of institutional design at the founding, to avenues of political participation, to thorough coverage of the political structures that constitute American government. The book builds upon what students have already learned and emphasizes connections between topics as well as between theory and applications. The goal of each section is to enable students not just to recognize concepts, but to work with them in ways that will be useful in later courses, future careers, and as engaged citizens. In order to help students understand the ways that government, society, and individuals interconnect, the revision includes more examples and details regarding the lived experiences of diverse groups and communities within the United States. The authors and reviewers sought to strike a balance between confronting the negative and harmful elements of American government, history, and current events, while demonstrating progress in overcoming them. In doing so, the approach seeks to provide instructors with ample opportunities to open discussions, extend and update concepts, and drive deeper engagement.

This book explores the US Supreme Court's impact on the constitutional development of the federal government from the founding era forward. The author's research is based on an original database of several hundred landmark decisions compiled from constitutional law casebooks and treatises published between 1822 and 2010. By rigorously and systematically interpreting these decisions, he determines the extent to which the court advanced and consolidated national governing authority. The result is a portrait of how the high court, regardless of constitutional issue and ideology, persistently expanded the reach and scope of the federal government.

"Sovereign Immunity or the Rule of Law suggests a fresh look at the doctrine of sovereign immunity through the lens of political philosophers whose writings were well known to the people who framed and ratified the United States Constitution. Some of those philosophers espoused theories of sovereignty that logically compelled sovereign immunity. John Locke, the philosopher upon whom the former colonists predominantly relied, espoused a theory of sovereignty that, by contrast, cannot tolerate the idea of sovereign immunity - a government not answerable to its own laws or to the instrument that gave it life. Donald L. Doernberg argues that the United States Constitution exists for no purpose other than to restrain government power, and that to declare the government immune from accountability under it is a profanation of our political and philosophical history."--BOOK JACKET.

Abraham Lincoln worried that the "walls" of the constitution would ultimately be leveled by the "silent artillery of time." His fears materialized with the 1913 ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which, by eliminating federalism's structural protection, altered the very nature and meaning of federalism. Ralph A. Rossum's provocative new book considers the forces unleashed by an amendment to install the direct election of U.S. Senators. Far from expecting federalism to be protected by an activist court, the Framers, Rossum argues, expected the constitutional structure, particularly the election of the Senate by state legislatures, to sustain it. In Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment Rossum challenges the fundamental jurisprudential assumptions about federalism. He also provides a powerful indictment of the controversial federalist decisions recently handed down by an activist U.S. Supreme Court seeking to fill the gap created by the Seventeenth Amendment's ratification and protect the original federal design. Rossum's masterful handling of the development of federalism restores the true significance to an amendment previously consigned to the footnotes of history. It demonstrates how the original federal design has been amended out of existence; the interests of states as states abandoned and federalism left unprotected, both structurally and democratically. It highlights the ultimate irony of constitutional democracy: that an amendment intended to promote democracy, even at the expense of federalism, has been undermined by an activist court intent on protecting federalism, at the expense of democracy.

Real federalism is a federalism that promotes citizen choice and competition among the states

An Entrenched Legacy takes a fresh look at the role of the Supreme Court in our modern constitutional system. Although criticisms of judicial power today often attribute its rise to the activism of justices seeking to advance particular political ideologies, Patrick Garry argues instead that the Supreme Court’s power has grown mainly because of certain constitutional decisions during the New Deal era that initially seemed to portend a lessening of the Court’s power. When the Court retreated from enforcing separation of powers and federalism as the twin structural protections for individual liberty in the face of FDR’s New Deal agenda, it was inevitably drawn into an alternative approach, substantive due process, as a means for protecting individual rights. This has led to many controversial judicial rulings, particularly regarding the recognition and enforcement of privacy rights. It has also led to the mistaken belief that the judiciary serves as the only protection of liberty and that an inherent conflict exists between individual liberty and majoritarian rule. Moreover, because the Court has assumed sole responsibility for preserving liberty, the whole area of individual rights has become highly centralized. As Garry argues, individual rights have been placed exclusively under judicial jurisdiction not because of anything the Constitution commands, but because of the constitutional compromise of the New Deal. During the Rehnquist era, the Court tried to reinvigorate the constitutional doctrine of federalism by strengthening certain powers of the states. But, according to Garry, this effort only went halfway toward a true revival of federalism, since the Court continued to rely on judicially enforced individual rights for the protection of liberty. A more comprehensive reform would require a return to the earlier reliance on both federalism and separation of powers as structural devices for protecting liberty. Such reform, as Garry notes, would also help revitalize the role of legislatures in our democratic system.

Courts are key players in the dynamics of federal countries since their rulings have a direct impact on the ability of governments to centralize and decentralize power. Courts in Federal Countries examines the role high courts play in thirteen countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Nigeria, Spain, and the United States. The volume’s contributors analyse the centralizing or decentralizing forces at play following a court’s ruling on issues such as individual rights, economic affairs, social issues, and other matters. The thirteen substantive chapters have been written to facilitate comparability between the countries. Each chapter outlines a country’s federal system, explains the constitutional and institutional status of the court system, and discusses the high court’s jurisprudence in light of these features. Courts in Federal Countries offers insightful explanations of judicial behaviour in the world’s leading federations.