States rights vs. Federal Gov, Supreme Court Decision issued today.

[Robert the41MagFan]

This is big! Really big! For the second time in 5 years the Supreme Court issued a stunning blow to the Federal Government. That it overreached with feel good legislation in an area that belongs only to state government. This is a crack in the ideas of Federalism.

-----------------------------------------------------


search > law center


dictionary


Supreme Court strikes down key provision of
violent-crime act


In this story:

Second-guessing Congress

Connection to the Commerce Clause

The rape and the genesis of the case

Interstate commerce

Majority ruling

The 14th Amendment argument

RELATED STORIES, SITES


By Raju Chebium
CNN Interactive Correspondent

May 15, 2000
Web posted at: 7:42 p.m. EDT (2342 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. v. Morrison is a
rape case that had little to do with the rape and a
lot to do with the constitutional justifications
Congress employed in passing the 1994 Violence
Against Women Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down
a key provision of the law that gave women such
as rape victim Christy Brzonkala the power to file
federal civil lawsuits against their attackers,
alleging their civil rights were violated.

The court ruled 5-4 that prosecuting such crimes
is the states' responsibility, thus limiting federal
power and boosting that of the states. The court
ruled that the Violence Against Women Act had no
basis in the Constitution's Commerce Clause or
the 14th Amendment as the Clinton administration
argued.
------------------------------------------------------------

Robert

 

[Valdez]

This is big, really big! The language is stronger than in Lopez, they explicitly denied that the Feds can pass laws against violent crime under the pretense of regulating interstate commerce.

Biden was blubbering about how horrible this was, and how it means that they need to elect Gore to put some new liberal to replace Rehnquist and overturn this decision.

All this tells me is that we'd better be on top of the next appointee to the court. Remember how dubba's father Soutered us.

Next time if the appointee doesn't believe in limits on federal power, we need to be organized and have an immediate mail, phone campaign in the works.

 

[Herodotus]

Yes, this is big. If the decission had gone the other way, we would in essecnce have had only one powerful central government in Washington and it would have surely have been the end of federalism.
We had the same type of blubbering idiots on T.V. here in St. Louis who seem so bemused by thier cause, dubiously preventing violence against women, that they could not see the greater danger of achieving some supposed progress towards it by using illegitimate means.
Remember, though, it was a 5 to 4 decission, very close.

 

[4V50 Gary]

For decades the commerce clause has been used as a basis of "implied" federal police powers - something which the Federal Govt. isn't suppose to have. Thankfully the Rehnquist Court has been narrowing its interpretation of what "affects" interstate commerce and in doing so, reducing Congress' ability to legislate under it. Hang in there Justice Rehnquist!

 

[fubsy]

That limiting of the interstate commerce act is a good thing, hopefully it can be revisited and further restricted as time goes on.....fubsy.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Of course, the local commie station (MPR) is talking about valuing "states' rights over victims' rights" and ignoring the broad legal implications. Barf!

 

[David Scott]

I agree with the court that rape is not "interstate commerce". I also think that to provide women with a legal remedy not open to men is sexual discrimination.

 

[Valdez]

I think that the next person who uses the term states' rights should be shot! Where did this term come from. It isn't from the Constitution. States and governments only have "powers." Only individuals have "rights." Read the Constitution and see what I mean.

The use of this term by our supposed supporters threatens the 2nd amendment because it causes a conflation of the two terms in the public's mind.

Sorry I was a little hasty with this rant I certainly don't mean to implicate anyone on this board. I'm talking about the media in general that uses it as a term of derision.



[This message has been edited by Valdez (edited May 16, 2000).]

 

[fubsy]

alright valdez....ill do pennance by cleaning the firearms inthe house,,,,but your right, or is that power, lol....its a habit that those of us who misuse the term should stop......fubsy.

 

[Futo Inu]

That is huge - an outstanding victory for states rights - I hope Tom Daschle, Dick Gephart, Ted Kennedy, and Di Fi are turning red with anger that there's a limit to their power.

 

[G50AE]

Valdez, you are correct. States do not have rights states have governmental powers over their respective teritories.

Agent9mm, your speling is tarable and your grammer are reely bad.

 

[oberkommando]

You gotta give 9mm some slack on his spelling as he, like me is living behind ememy lines. Its kinda hard to spell correctly with the gestapo checking houses on an hourly basis like they do in Mass and out here in kalifornia.

Glad to hear of the decision.

 

[ak9]

Agent9mm, isn't interesting that the minuteman is the symbol of the state of Mass on the new quarters and what is he holding? The most advanced assault weapon of the day. I wonder what he would say about the people of and it's government today? Just wondering.