A fairly key aspect of American federalism is there are a lot of things the Feds can't force states to participate in, as provided in the Tenth Amendment. (Known as anti-commandeering doctrine.)
A fairly key aspect of American federalism is there are a lot of things the Feds can't force states to participate in, as provided in the Tenth Amendment. (Known as anti-commandeering doctrine.)
Sadly, Wickard v. Filburn effectively ended this.[1] Also the feds don't have to use force against the states to get compliance. They can do things like not provide funding for freeway maintenance[2], or penalize individuals for not participating (as was the case with the Affordable Care Act).
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...
Eh, sorta.
South Dakota v. Dole held that things like the drinking age can only be tied to related items. Road maintenance in exchange for road rules passes muster, and interstate highways is about as "interstate commerce" as you can probably get.
I'm not prepared to consider the Tenth extinct just yet. That is, among other things, a "you nuke us we nuke you" scenario between the two parties. Things like drinking age work because the two parties largely agree on it.
This is one Supreme Court case from going away.
In that case putting a light on that "State rights" was just talk.
We already know that from numerous past attempts to restrict abortion on the federal level etc.
Republicans don't care as long as their side is the one owning the Fed. It's only States' Rights when Democrats are in charge of the federal.
[flagged]