Consider: Why is federalism a good system for the US?
"Pope Francis arrived in Washington, D.C., today. I saw that President Obama actually picked him up at the airport. When asked how the Pope will get back to the airport, Obama was like, 'Uber? I don't know. It's not my problem.'" –Jimmy Fallon
"The trip to Washington, D.C., has actually been very educational for the Pope. You know, because he's only ever read about purgatory." –Jimmy Fallon
"A company in Japan has released a robot that's able to simulate some emotion. Either that or Hillary Clinton just made a surprise visit to Japan." –Conan O'Brien
"I read that certain data that measures how often a candidate's name is mentioned showed that Donald Trump is actually fading from the media spotlight. You can tell Trump's status has faded, because today, he was named a contestant on 'Celebrity Apprentice.'" –Jimmy
Fallon
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has become the second GOP presidential hopeful to drop out of the 2016 race. He says he looks forward to his new job as the picture in the dictionary next to the word 'duh.'" –Seth Meyers
"Tonight, I'll be tangling with Texas senator Ted Cruz. He is the third presidential candidate
I've had on the show. I want to interview all of them, but I only have 200 shows a year." –
Stephen Colbert
Homework: Assignment 11 for Tuesday; bring READER with you.

Consider: When should state governments be able to make their own laws, and when should they not?
Federalism and Speed Limits
The Last Word: Assignment 11 for tomorrow; bring READER to class.

The “Tug-of-War” between Washington and the states

The Tug-of-War Between States and the National Government




 How was it established?
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.

 Expressed (and inherent), implied, denied, reserved



Consider: How has federalism seemed to follow a “back and forth” course over American history?
The Last Word: Assignment 12 for tomorrow;





 The national government
 The state governments

 Both?
 Environmental regulations
 Education
 Marijuana legalization
 Marriage laws

 Which level of government does the Constitution say has the job of making laws regarding immigration (state or federal)?
 Does this law fall under that provision? Why or why not?
 Do you believe that Arizona has acted appropriately in this situation?
 What might be the consequences if states were able to take action like this?
 Court decision:
 Struck down most of the Arizona law
▪ "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law,“
 The “dissenting opinion”
▪ "If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state...”

3.2
 List the 2 major questions before the Court in the case.
 Summarize Marshall’s proposition that he believes would receive “the universal assent of mankind”.
 “We admit…that the powers of government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound [interpretation] of the
Constitution must allow the national legislature that discretion…which enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the
Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”
 Given Marshall’s statement above, formulate an argument that might be made by a strict constructionist, or perhaps an Anti-Federalist, to refute his conclusion.
 Explain how this decision impacted federalism in the United States.

3.2




 Describe the central question in this case.
 How does the Court address the issue of
Congressional findings regarding violence against women and interstate commerce in this case?
 How does the dissent answer this claim regarding the Congressional findings and the role of Courts vis-à-vis Congress?
 Explain how this decision impacted federalism in the United States.

 Describe the central question in this case.
 How does the majority in this case respond to the claim that the cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana are a purely local activity, and out of the reach of the Commerce clause?
 The Dissent
 Explain Justice O’Connor’s point with regard to the role of states as “laboratories”.

 Appointed by Reagan
 Committed to states’ rights
 Rolled back federal authority
 U.S. v. Lopez (1995)
3.6

Facts
 The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA) made it
 unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that he knew or had reasonable cause to believe was a school zone.
Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed and loaded handgun into his high school and was arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises.
 The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Act.
Issues
 Does the GFSZA exceed Congress’ authority under the
Commerce Clause?

The GFSZA exceeded Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause.
 The three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power are:
 a) the use of the channels of interstate commerce;
 b) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce; and
 c) those activities having a “substantial relation” to interstate commerce
 The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
 Neither the Act itself nor its legislative history expresses congressional findings regarding the effects of gun possession in a school zone on interstate commerce.
To uphold the Government’s contention that the Act is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.

Dissent (Stevens)
 Guns are articles of commerce and can be used to interfere with commerce. The national interest justifies prohibiting their use by children in school.
Dissent (Souter)
 The only inquiry should be whether the legislative judgment is within the realm of reason. Congress should have plenary (full, complete) power to legislate under the Commerce Clause as long as the law passes the rational basis test.
Dissent (Breyer)
 Violence in schools interferes with the quality of education and education is inextricably tied to the economy. Congress could have rationally concluded that the possession of guns in school zones is related to interstate commerce. The majority contradicts well settled precedent that has permitted Congress to regulate noncommercial activity affecting interstate commerce.

 Has decided in favor of the federal government more often
 Immigration
 Health care reform – (ACA) Obamacare decision
3.6