Federal Government Authority Case Study

Objective of this paper is to discuss where the following agencies lie in the administrative structure of the federal government:

“Federalism, central to the constitutional design, adopts the principle that both the National and State Governments have elements of sovereignty the other is bound to respect.” Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2500 (2012). The Supremacy Clause provides a clear rule that federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2. Under this standard, Congress has the power to preempt state law. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2495; Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372 (2000); Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 210–211 (1824). However, it is assumed that historic State police powers are not superseded “unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2501; Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947).

The present case presents this Court with the opportunity to authoritatively end the debate over a state’s ability to offensively use its Eleventh Amendment immunity to dodge otherwise meritorious lawsuits and to provide crucial protection for private litigants in the judicial system. See, e.g., Katherine C. Penberthy, Meyers ex rel. Benzing v. Texas: The Fifth Circuit Adopts a Middle-Ground Approach to the Waiver-by-Removal Rule of State Sovereign Immunity, 80 Tul. L. Rev. 2019, 2023–25 (2006) (noting the split between circuit courts regarding whether a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity may be used following removal of a case).

According to the standpoint of the political scientist Joseph Zimmerman, who is an expert in concept of federalism, the Constitution does not extend Congress the right to exercise police power. Consequently, it is very difficult congress to ensure individuals safety. Instead, states are authorized to guarantee, promote, and protect the safety of the citizens. According to the Constitution, Congress is delegated to use its powers in response to certain problems and challenges to guarantee some type of federal of governance system. Division in congress sometimes made this a difficult feat. Furthermore, some senators who were civil rights critics tried to reinforce the concept states’ rights as well as the Tenth Amendment. They argued that states are given the rights to defy both civil rights reforms and federal laws. We can affirm that Article 1 and Article 2 are typical examples of the federalism-civil rights debate, which was established in Burke Marshall’s,

This historical and legal analysis will define the important aspects of Constitutional of the Tenth Amendment that defined the rights of Southern states to secede from the Union. The individual rights of states defined the “perpetual” union of the states, but president Lincoln violated these constitutional rights by imposing federal authority to prevent southern state autonomy. Before the Civil War, the interpretation of perpetual union under the Constitution was determined through Madison’s own understanding of a weak federal government that could not coerce of threaten the rights of individual states. More so, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution specifically provides a sovereignty of states rights, which allow states to form conventions

This “anti-commandeering” rule states that Congress does not have the power to pass laws that require state officials to implement or enforce federal laws. Stevens dissented, stating that the logic behind the ruling was inconsistent with the supremacy clause of the constitution. This challenge against the federal authority had no clear footing since there is no principle within the Constitution stating that the federal courts cannot commandeer states. In addition, this practice has also already been settled for over a century where state courts were frequently commandeered to carry out federal policies and laws such as during the New Deal. The anti-commandeering rule also proved to be dangerous as it may threaten the nation’s ability to respond effectively during times of external invasion or natural disasters. “It also impairs the the efficient administration of ordinary federal programs” (15). The anti-commandeering rule brings back the separate spheres of powers seen in dual federalism. However, in an era where cooperative federalism has been established for decades, the anti-commandeering rule becomes illogical. Stevens suggests that adding the four words “and other public officials” to the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution would resolve this issue.

There have been many questions and concerns leading to court cases regarding federalism and state rights. Most frequently the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments interpretation plays a pivotal role in these cases. The tenth amendments are powers reserved for the states that are not expressed in the Constitution. The eleventh amendment protects states from getting sued by citizens. The cases Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA), Nevada v Hibbs and Alden v Maine will showcase if the Supreme Court has been consistent when dealing with federalism and states rights.

First and foremost, the 1788 Federalist Papers by James Madison were written with the sole purpose to support the enactment of the Federalist System throughout the states. Wherefore, federalism, with all of its importance in its glory, is ultimately recognized in the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights addresses that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, all that is not addressed in the Constitution nor redressed by the national government is left to the state governments as reserved powers. Nonetheless, such reserved authorities have been challenged through the course of history. For instance, in the

In what could be an odd twist for President Trump’s populist-nationalist brand of conservatism, the anti-commandeering principles articulated in Justice Scalia’s Printz v. United States opinion may be the precedent that informs and drives the outcome of much of the Supreme Court’s upcoming caseloads. The tension between our federal government’s jurisdiction and the rights of the States dates back to our founders and the Articles of Confederation,(p60) in which sovereign states delegated power to a central government for specified purposes only. It emerged again in the disagreements between the Anti-Federalists (p91) and Federalists(p97) in the effort to ratify our Constitution and the concession to George Mason, James Madison and Thomas

There are many steps, rules and regulations that must occur in order to for an organized labor union. If employees of a company want to have a union represent them, they must sign authorization cards, petition for an election, hold hearings, determine the appropriate bargaining unit, and have an election to determine who will represent the employees (Holley, 2012). There are many rules to each one of these steps to be completed for the unionization to be

The opportunities defended by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments have two lives, one static and the other natural (Jolley & Donahue, 2016). Their static life exists in the first dialect of the alterations as they were endorsed by the states in 1791, while their natural life exists in the developing assortment of state and government case law deciphering their contents, applying it, and characterizing its extension as various genuine circumstances precede the

exclusive power of regulating interstate commerce. With the decision of this case in 1824, any

Four major drug control laws that were enacted by the federal government since 1900 are the Harrison Act of 1914, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the Anti-Drug Abuse of 1986, and the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act (Levinthal, 2012).

A court may not exercise power over a defendant if doing so would deprive them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process requires notice and that the defendant is constitutionally and statutorily amenable to trial. In order to be statutorily amendable, one must examine the state’s long-arm statutes, which authorize courts to exercise jurisdiction over defendants based on specific types of contacts with the forum

Throughout the years 1877-1981, minority groups employed activism in a variety of guises in the struggle to achieve civil rights. While leading activists could draw on international events to strengthen their cause and enjoyed greater success as the campaign persisted, it ultimately fell to the government to make advances: activists needed a sympathetic president and government to legally push through change, thus the progression of civil rights was arguably dictated more by the current political situation than by the work of activists. The influence of the federal government is further seen by the fact that it both hindered and accomplished change throughout this period.