Gonzales Vs. Raich Summary

New Federalism is an attempt in the 70's and 80's to restore some powers to the states from the Government. When a state court is deciding whether a case is constitutional, it must apply standards at least equal to those of the federal level. Moreover, if the states own constitutional or statutory standards are more demanding than those in the federal system, then the state may apply its own standards, giving greater protection than demanded by the U.S. Constitution. It is derived from the rule that state court decisions based on adequate and independent state grounds are immune from federal review. Examples of new federalism in action are gun laws and regulations and states not legalizing marijuana and/or gay marriages.

The case study Gonzales v. Raich contributed to the debate of federalism in the United States, as well as the debate regarding the decriminalization of marijuana, even for a medical purpose. Surrounding the case study, groups of people either defended Raich and Monson stating that they were perfectly legal in their state, or defended the government stating that the federal law should override state law. The role of interest groups and political parties regarding Gonzales v. Raich is to take a side on the issue and allow the public to identify with one position or the other collectively.

Before the analysis of how federalism and judicial review plays a part in individual rights, one must know what exactly they are. Federalism is a system that spreads the powers over two or more political structures. These structures could be as small as cities and go all up to the federal government system. An example of this is state laws and federal laws. Some states have allowed the use for marijuana for medical use. While the state laws allow it, marijuana is still illegal under federal law. The first start of federalism and separation of states comes with the Constitution. This established our federal government and brought the states together under one government. The Constitution “recognizes the federal government as the highest power” (Dugger). Even though it is the higher power, the constitution includes that states are different powers and also have their own rights.

A good example of federalism is usage of marijuana. Federalism, with its dual sovereignty, can create a patchwork of conflicting laws between the states as well as between the states and federal government.

Another limitation set forth in the Constitution is that of anti-commandeering. Even though federal governments can enact law they cannot use the states as instruments of federal governance. Often overlooked, this argument used in appropriate cases to limit the Supremacy Clause, is found in the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, “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. “The anti-commandeering principle applied to the issue of medical marijuana raises the question of protecting states’ prerogative to legalize activity that Congress bans. In a case where Congress legalizes an activity that the states have banned the issue of conflict need not arise because the individual’s choice remains whether to engage in said activity or not. In the instance of Congress banning an activity legalized by the states, conflict emerges with unclear boundaries.

Federalism is defined in our book as: “the relationship between the centralized national government and the individual state governments” (Berman and Murphy 92). Federalism is a very important government system that is frequently discussed and argued, even today. The topic of federalism has become a topic of argument because many people believe the federal government should have more power, and yet some other people believe the states should have most of the power. One of the ways that federalism is in our government is in our Congress, and indirectly through Congress to the difference in laws between the states. We can look at all the different speed limits in all of the individual states; they are not all the same. This is because the residents of any certain state and the representatives of that state can choose whatever they deem fit to set as limits. Another

“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.” Our Tenth Amendment, as it was originally written does not specify or restrict the spectrum of powers which are entitled to the federal government, the state government, and or the people. Since this amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not provide an accurate measure of the powers granted to each group, it is a very open concept and its extent can be given an infinite number of interpretations. The lack of specific distinction between the powers can cause altercations regarding the rights and authority that the state and the national government have over certain issues. To

States have always been sensitive about the amount of power they have; the federal government has always had to step carefully around the demands of the states. This has been true since the beginning of the United States. But both believe that they should have the most power when it comes to certain things. Individual states have different values and as such tend to implement different laws about certain topics; such states want their state laws to reflect these individual values instead of a blanket law from the federal government. States should have less power compared to the federal government when implementing laws dealing with topics such as the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion.

Instead of the federal law, states took it into their own hand to make their own. It may seem comedic but some states made their own sort of “wacky” laws. Some of the laws are countless and it seems as if states took advantage of the Tenth amendment to just create their own regulations. In Alabama it is illegal to drive while blindfolded, and in Florida it is Illegal to sell your children, and in Arkansa it is prohibited to pronounce “Arkansas’’ incorrectly. Most of

In the United States Constitution it is stated that “No single section of the constitution deals with federalism. Instead, the provisions dividing power between the states and the national government appear throughout the constitution. Most of the constitution is concerned with establishing the powers of the national government. National power is also based on the supremacy clause of article VI, which says that the constitution and laws made in accordance with it are “the supreme law of the land”. This means that when national and state laws conflict, the national laws will be followed. Article I, section 9 limits the power of the national government over individuals. The tenth amendment the constitution also limits the state powers in Article I, section10 and denies the states certain powers” (Keeping the

The US Constitution defines the federal government as “The Supreme Law of the land”, known as the Supremacy Clause. Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution states that, should the federal government exercise their rights enumerated in the Constitution, they would prevail over any conflicting state implementation of power. The clause ensures that the federal laws take precedence over state laws and ensures that state judges uphold these laws. The Supremacy Clause checks the power of the local governments by

One reason I believe the states should have the power to do what they think is best for their states right now was because these official are in this state and know what the people want and what they need in the state. See these political offical hear what the people want unlike right now the government tries to do what is best for all the people but some of it affects other states. If the states had the power to decide then all the states would be better and more prosperous. There have been case where the federal government has bullied the states into changing their mind to what they want. Such as in Louisiana they officials wanted to change the legal; drinking age to 18 years old because it

The federal government and state governments have had a long history of powers struggles. The struggle goes back and forth between who has the right to make decisions and if there is a problem who should fix it. Sometimes it is better for the federal government to fix issues and during other situations it is better for the state or local governments to fix other issues. In the PBS special of the United States Constitution, Peter Sagal travels around the states documenting the various roles and impact the government has on the country as a whole and on the individual states.

The federal government began to gain power, and in Article I section 8 says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts and provide the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imports and excises shall be uniform through the United States; to borrow money on the credit of the United Staes; to regulate commerce with foreign nation, and among the several states, and with the Indians Tribes… to establish post offices and post roads .” The following quote describes how the national government has different kinds of power compared to federal government. Article IV section 1 says, “full faith and credit shall be given in each states to the public acts, records, and judicial proceeding of every other state. And the Congress may general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved… ” In simpler words, the state government has to follow laws just like a ordinary

Since there is no text in the Constitution that states this the claims must be made by historical understanding and practice of the text. The people who are against this argue that in recent years that there has not been any precedent that relates to this kind of action. However they disagree with that and state there in fact has been the earliest congress had acts that also required state officials to participate in the enforcement of federal laws. They were doing so however since they did not know that power existed. The assumption that the federal government can command the state's executive power in the absence of a constitutional authorization is not indicated it is the opposite of that actually. Including that it has been around since the earlier is not true that there is some protection that the states have against this keeping their duty to keep their goals. The early legislation also has sources that indicate the original understanding of the Constitution. Alos that though they could and may be needed to regulate commerce they way the act was set up was not within its power to do so. They stayed with the old principle that states are not required to enforce it since state legislature is not required to follow or are a subject to federal direction. There is also a separation of powers that a state has and powers that the government