Think I am missing a case or two, could someone let me know?1. Hamdan2. Hammer3. Darby4. Printz5. Alden6. Nevada7. Crosby
what was the ruling in alden v maine?
What does "preempted" mean?
Cases:Hamdi v. RumsfeldHamdan v. RumsfeldHammer v. DagenhartUS v. Darby LumberPrintz v. USAlden v. MaineNevada DHR v. HibbsCrosby v. National Foreign Trade And don't forget our discussion of Seminole Tribe and Carhart (the abortion case).
In Alden v. Maine the Court ruled that Congress could not waive state sovereign immunity for suits under federal law in state courts using its Article I powers. It expanded on its ruling in Seminole Tribe in which it ruled that Congress could not waive state immunity in Federal courts. State sovereign immunity is the doctrine which holds that citizens cannot sue the state for money damages. The Eleventh Amendment has been interpreted to extend state sovereign immunity to suits against states under federal law in federal courts.
Preempted means that a federal law cancels out (or preempts) a state law. This occurs when the federal law is constitutional and:1. It conflicts with a state law2. It intends to occupy the field or3. The state law is an obstacle to achieving the federal purpose.
Can someone elaborate on subjecting states to suits in federal court?
What obvious flaw in the law did no one mention in the Abortion case? I can't remember.
In the Hammer case, how did Justice Davis justify that the law should be overturned? Isn't there an issue that federal laws should be allowed to prevent competition between the states?
I don't exactly understand the dissent in the printz case. How does the neccesary and proper clause allow Congress to boss around state executives?
In Seminole Tribe the Court ruled that the Eleventh Amendment prohibited Congress from subject states to lawsuits in federal court using its Article I powers (like commerce). In Alden the Court said this doctrine also prevented Congress from subjecting states to lawsuits in state courts. Then in Hibbs the Court said Congress could waive this state immunity using section 5 of the 14th amendment. In that case the Court agreed that the FMLA was a legitimate way to remedying gender discrimination under the 14th Amendment. Thus the express waiver of state immunity was effective.
I know this is a very broad question, but what is the key difference between Hamdan and Hamdi that allows the difference in ruling?
The Court upheld the federal partial birth abortion law in Gonzales v. Carhart. The law was passed under the Commerce power - despite the fact that it regulated a purely local medical procedure. Typically the conservative justices who upheld the law rule that the Commerce power can only be used to regulate commercial activity that has a substantial impact on interstate commerce. As we have seen, they also argue that the 10th amendment reserves to the states the general police power to regulate morality and health.
In Hammer Justice Day argued that the child labor law was an unconstitutional use of the interstate commerce power because it regulated local activity - labor conditions.
In Printz the dissent argued that congress has the express power to regulate the sale of firearms using its Article I commerce power. Temporarily enlisting state officers to conduct background checks was necessary and proper in order to carry out the express power.
By the way, Printz is a good example of Dual Federalism versus Cooperative Federalism. The conservative majority argues that the state and federal governments are separate (dual) sovereigns. One cannot boss around the other. On the other hand the liberal dissent sees the federal relationship as allowing states and the federal government to cooperate with each other to achieve the common good.
The key difference between Hamdi and Hamdan is that in Hamdi the Court considered detention and in Hamdan the Court considered process. In Hamdi the Court ruled that the president could detain citizens as enemy combatants. However, he had to give them an opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral tribunal and they had a right to counsel. In Hamdan the Court ruled that the military tribunals established by President Bush violated the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
I dont get the gist of the alden case.. the main part confusing me is the comparison of being sued in state court versus federal court, when there are federal state courts?
What is the main issue in the Nevada case and what was the final ruling?
The majority in Alden argues that subjecting states to lawsuits in their own courts is even more damaging to their sovereignty than subjecting them to suits in federal courts.
See my answer above regarding the Hibbs case for your answer to the "Nevada" case question. The case is NV DHR v. Hibbs.
I think I failed this quiz. Is there any opportunity for extra credit. Also what were some of the answers to the quiz?
Post a Comment