Federalism Flashcards
What is dual federalism
definition, any other important info
idea that the state government is as important as the federal government, sometimes even more important than the federal government
Federal and state are seperate sovereigns and cannot infringe upon each other
10th Amendment restricts federal power
Necessary and Proper Clause is narrow
What is cooperative federalism?
definition, any other important info
The idea that the federal government is supreme, but partners with the state government when useful
Constitution is a pact between the people and the federal gov’t
10th Amendment gives no additional power to the states
Supremacy clause means federal gov’t is dominant in its sphere of activities
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
is this cooperative or dual federalist? What case is this known for?
This case is a cooperative federalist case, and is the national bank case.
Federal government is supreme over the state government under the Supremacy Clause and Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution. Constitution is a document created for and by the ppl, and the federal gov’t is the institution that was created to serve the ppl. Constitution was clearly written for the fed gov’t to be dominant, not the states.
Not all of Congress’s powers are enumerated, some are implied. As long as the implied power is connected to using an enumerated power, it is ok.
States do not have taxation powers. If they did, it would undermine the federal gov’t.
Scott v Sanford (1857)
is this cooperative or dual federalist case?
this is a dual federalist case and discusses whether slaves are US citizens and if Congress can regulate slavery. Dred Scott and the Missouri Compromise.
Congress cannot regulate slavery or citizenship of slaves because it is a violation of due process (yt men are being denied property – aka slaves).
Slave status is determine by current resident states.
Due to the Constitution containing slavery clause, black ppl cannot be citizens and are an insubordinate class. Black ppl have no rights in political institutions.
Coyle v. Smith (1911)
cooperative federalist or dual federalist
This is a a dual federalist case and is about state capital locations
the decision of where a state’s capital location is reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment. Congress can only ratify states, but cannot choose the location of the state’s capital.
Garcia v. San Antonio MTA (1985)
this case is a cooperative federalist case and is about whether Congress can use their enumerated powers to regulate something that was previously known to be reserved to the states (essential state functions case).
Federal Labor Standards Act’s mininum wage and hours law was expanded to states, states didn’t like that.
If Congress is validly using an enumerated power, then the 10th Amendment cannot limit the usage of that power.
New York v. US (1992)
this case is about anti-commandeering and is a dual federalist case. It is about the radioactive waste law.
Congress cannot coerce states to obey federal policies through witholdment of funds. Congress can only mildly nudge or encourage states by withholding of funds.
Printz v. US (1997)
this case is about anti-commandeering and the Brady Bill (gun regulations) and CLEO officiers.
Congress cannot use state officials, such as local law enforcement, to further federal policies.
Murphy v. NCAA (2018)
this case is a dual federalist case about anti-commandeering. This is the sports gambling case.
Congress cannot commandeer/coerce the state government to NOT take an action. Congress cannot force the states to be inactive on an activity.
Alden v. Maine (2018)
this case is about state sovereign immunity.
Overall, states cannot be sued in state court or federal court unless they consent to the lawsuit/waive their immunity. Congress cannot ignore sovereign immunity.
Missouri v. Holland (1925)
this case is about preemption (if federal and state regulate the same thig, the federal gov’t wins. Question of whether the Migratory Birds Act violates the 10th Amendment?
Migratory Bird Act is found constitutional. The 10A is irrelevant in this case because Congress has the power to make treaties under Aritcle II section 2 and Article 4. Federal law is the supreme law of the land. Bird regulations aren’t solely a state power because they can fly over state lines.
in the bigger picture, this case establishes that federal law trumps state law, especially when Congress’s actions are backed by the Constitution.
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (2000)
this case is about preemption. This case is about state law vs. federal law on business with Myanmar. Issue is whether or not the MA law is preempted by federal law.
If Congress intends to “occupy the field”, and Congress and the states are having laws over the same thing, then the law is premepted. In this case, its obvious that Congress wanted/intended the President to be the leader in terms of business with Myanmar/Burma, so the Massachusetts law is preempted.
in the bigger picture, this case adds Congress’s intent into the preemption convo. If Congress intends or wants to occupy the field, they have the dominance. Preemption does not have to be explicit.
Arizona v. US (2012)
this case is about preemption an illegal immigration. it considers the balance of premeption vs. state interest on topics that the federal gov’t is dominant over.
Arizona immigration law: Section 3, 5, 6, 2(b). All sections are preempted except for 2(b) because the results for 2(b) are hypothetical and hasn’t happened yet. Sections 3,5,6 are preempted because there are already federal processes that exist over each concern the sections have
