ETVT that state rights are sufficiently protected (30) Flashcards
State rights v Individual rights - they are
Dobbs v Jackson 2023 reversed precedent in Roe v Wade 1973, held that abortion was not a right explicitly protected under the constitution, and therefore gave states the power to legislate abortion as unconstitutional.
Most abortions are now banned in 14 states following the Supreme court decision, clearly giving power back to the states.
Glossip v Gloss 2015 ruled that it is the responsibility of the prisoner and not the state to demonstrate that the method caused severe pain.
Baze v Rees 2008, the court decided that lethal injection, the method used by the federal government and 35 states to execute criminals did not constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.
Buckwell v Precythe 2019, the 8th amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a ‘painless death’, effectively allowing states to decide whether the death penalty should be legal.
The death penalty is legal in 27 states and has been abolished by 25 others, the methods use vary from firing squad in South Carolina to lethal injection in Alabama, federalism means that the constitution and Supreme court has given them autonomy over this.
State rights v individual rights - they arent
There is often conflict between individual liberties/rights and states’ rights, when this happens a lot of the time states rights are not protected, the constitution protects individual liberties In the bill of rights
McDonald v City of Chicago 2010 was a landmark decision that found the 14th amendment or due process clause means that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is enforceable on the states.
NY v Bruen 2022 ruled in a 6-3 decision that the NY state law was unconstitutional as it infringed on the right to keep and bear arms.
Obergefell v Hodges 2015 ruled that the equal protection clause of the 14th and equal protection clause required all states to perform and recognise same sex couples on the same terms and conditions of opposite-sex couples.
State rights v civil rights - They are
With the Voting rights act of 1965 is key legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. However, in the 21st century much of the VRA has been repealed.
In the run up to the 2016 election 9 states introduced photo ID laws, black voters are statistically far less likely to possess such documents and therefore abnormally effected.
Brnovich v DNC 2021 ruled that neither of Arizona’s election policies violated the VRA, this included one outlawing ballot collection and another banning out of precinct voting this reduced minority participation in Arizonan elections due to a higher proportion voting postally.
Furthermore, Shelby County v Holder 2013 overturned section 4b of the VRA, making section 5 null and void as well. The impact of this was that states could now require ID to vote. This ruling once again disproportionately affected minority voters, as they were less likely to have an ID.
1 in 13 African Americans have lost their right to vote due to previous convictions, a rate of 4 times higher than other Americans, this is called ‘felony disenfranchisement’.
State rights v civil rights - they arent
The 15th amendment in the US constitution gave African American men the right to vote in 1870, the poll tax had been used In some states to keep African Americans from voting in federal elections, the 24th amendment ratified in 1964 eliminated the poll tax.
In 2023 Allen v Milligan the Supreme court issued a 5-4 ruling in favour of black voters in a congressional redistricting case, ordering the creation of a second district with a large black population.
There was a violation of the Voting Rights Act 1965 in a Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven congressional districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black.
Voting rights act 1965, this prohibits racial discrimination in voting, this is designed to enforce voting rights guaranteed by the 14th and 15th amendments to the US constitution.
Voter turnout amongst black voters has increased significantly over the past 40 years, in 1980 only 50% went to the polls, by 2012 this number was 66%.
State rights v federal rights - they arent
Finally, there is the trade-off between the rights of the states and the rights of the federal government.
The commerce clause is found in Article 1 of the US constitution, the clause states that the US congress should have power to regulate interstate commerce.
Gonzales v Raich 2005, the court ruled that the commerce clause of the US constitution means that congress can criminalise the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes. The controlled substances act was upheld over California state law.
State rights v federal rights - they are
The 10th amendment states clearly that all powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution then there are reserved to the states or the people, meaning that the constitution ensures that when it comes to powers not written in the constitution the states’ rights are protected over the federal government.
Printz v US 1997 found that certain provisions of the brady handgun violence prevention act 1993 violated the 10th amendment, the court ruled that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction and they could not force/mandate states to perform background checks, because of the 10th amendment right that all powers not written in the constitution are reserved for the states.
US v Lopez 1997, the Gun-free school zones act 1990 banned the possession of handguns within 1,000 feet of a school, the US supreme court that ruled that ‘commerce’ means the federal government cannot enforce the regulation of handguns in this case as it is not a economic activity and outside the scope of the commerce clause.
ACA 2010 meant that people who could not afford to buy health insurance would be covered by the expansion of the federal-state Medicaid programme, states either had to participate in this expansion or lose their federal funding of Medicaid, the federal governments largest grant programme.
NFIB v Sebelius ruled that the provision of law here was coercion rather than persuasion, this struck down the provision from law. YOU CAN ARGUE THE OTHER WAY – Individual mandate.
