Opinion ID: 6978959
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Current Views

Text: The continuing potency of the states has recently been emphasized by the Supreme Court in a series of cases demonstrating an increased sensitivity to state independence. See, e.g., Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997) (holding unconstitutional the enforcement provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring local chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks on gun purchasers); id. at --, 117 S.Ct. at 2383 (“[T]he whole object of the law [is] to direct the functioning of the state executive, and hence to compromise the structural framework of dual sovereignty .... It is the very principle of separate state sovereignty that such a law offends.... ”); Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars Congress from using its power under the Indian Commerce Clause of Article I to expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts under Article III); id. at 72, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (“[W]e reconfirm that the background principle of state sovereign immunity embodied in the Eleventh Amendment is not so ephemeral as to dissipate when the subject of the suit is an area, like the regulation of Indian commerce, that is under the exclusive control of the Federal Government”); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) (holding that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeds Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause); id. at 567, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (“To uphold the Government’s contentions here ... would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.”); id. at 578, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (“[T]he federal balance is too essential a part qf our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom for us to admit inability to intervene when one or the other level of Government has tipped the scales too far.”); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (holding unconstitutional “take-title” provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985); id. at 178, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (“No matter how powerful the federal interest involved, the Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.”). These decisions iterate with renewed vigor the system of “dual sovereignty” envisioned by the framers and established by the Constitution with the fundamental goal of preventing the expansion of state or federal governmental power at the expense of the liberty of individuals. See, e.g., New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (“State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991) (“[A] healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny from either front.”); id. at 459, 111 S.Ct. 2395 (“In the tension between federal and state power lies the promise of liberty.”). They recognize that our federal governmental structure affords its citizens increased liberty through increased political accountability. As the court stated in Lopez, “[t]he theory that two governments accord more -liberty than one requires for its realization two distinct and discernible lines of political accountability: one between the citizens and the Federal Government; the second between the citizens and the States.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 576, 115 S.Ct. 1624.