S.B. 1070, ACA, AND FEDERAL PREEMPTION
1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption
S.B. 1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption
Tenth Amendment
The Tenth Amendment was intended to limit the scope and power of the federal government, thereby preserving some measure of state autonomy (Lash, 2006). The Tenth Amendment accomplishes this by stating explicitly that the federal government can only exercise those powers enumerated within the U.S. Constitution. All other powers are left to the states. In James Madison's words, a Federalist, the "… powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." (p. 166). The Tenth Amendment therefore allows states to retain their freedom, sovereignty, and right to self-determination, as long as it does not conflict with the powers conferred to the federal government by the Constitution.
Madison, however, never viewed the Tenth Amendment as restricting the construction of federal powers (Lash, 2006). Two hundred years ago the Ninth Amendment was interpreted as limiting the growth of federal powers enumerated in the Constitution. During the Federalist period, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were therefore distinct, yet complimentary. By the late 20th century, U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence had essentially rendered the Ninth Amendment moot when the Rehnquist Court, in a number of decisions, interpreted the Tenth Amendment as both enumerating the powers of the Federal government and strictly limiting construction. The Rule of Strict Construction was therefore tied to the Tenth Amendment by the Rehnquist Court.
Federal Preemption
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protect state rights, but the text of these amendments fail to address how to resolve conflicts between federal and state constitutions and laws. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI, paragraph 2, states that when such conflicts arise federal law preempts state law (LII, 2010a; LII, 2010b). Some examples include the Voting Rights Act passed by the U.S. Congress, which preempts all state voting laws. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been given the authority to take over regulation of all
In contrast, the FDA also regulates prescription medication labeling, but only by setting minimum standards. State laws can therefore impose stricter labeling guidelines for medications if they wish.
S.B. 1070: A Case Study in Federal Preemption
One of the more controversial cases of federal preemption is the battle over provisions within Arizona's anti-immigration law S.B. 1070. Federal jurisprudence concerning preemption challenges is all over the map, according to Jennifer Phillips (2011). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit tends to view federal immigration laws as taking precedence over anything remotely related to immigrants and their status in this country. By contrast, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has permitted states to require employers to take part in the E-Verify program, thereby limiting the scope of federal preemption when it comes to immigration laws within its jurisdiction.
Four provisions of Arizona's anti-immigration law S.B. 1070 were challenged in federal court and eventually the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments (Arizona et al. v. United States, 2012). This law was the result of growing frustration at the local level with the federal government's unwillingness or inability to address a growing problem with illegal immigrants. The name of the law is Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act and the stated goal was to establish policies that discouraged illegal immigration and eliminate the economic incentives that fuels illegal immigration. The law emphasized the greater use of law enforcement to achieve these goals.
Two provisions in S.B. 1070 created new crimes (Arizona et al. v. United States, 2012). If an illegal immigrant fails to register with the appropriate federal agency and then tries to seek employment they are guilty of two misdemeanors for each act. A third provision challenged before the Supreme Court gave local and state law enforcement officers the authority to arrest, without a warrant, anyone who could be deported for having committed an offense. The fourth provision allows law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. The District Court for Arizona issued a preliminary injunction…
Federal Courts On Linda Greenhouse's Op-Ed: "Lessons Maybe Learned" Linda Greenhouse in her New York Times article titled Lessons Maybe Learned reminds us that the federal courts still exist, despite the weakening of Constitutional protections for privacy, free speech, and due process, and against cruel and unusual punishment since 9/11. She opens her opinion piece by relating her sentiment of the almost invisibility of judicial branch in the post-9/11 America. Of course
Federal Judiciary On Wednesday morning, right before the Supreme Court justices were about to begin their day, Justice Kennedy put a 24-hour hold on a Ninth Circuit Court mandate nullifying same sex marriage bans in the states of Nevada and Idaho (Denniston, 2014). The temporary stay on the Ninth Circuit's ruling is to allow ban opponents to present their side of the issue. This ruling surprised everyone because last year the
Federal Courts There are three branches of the federal government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The federal courts were established by Congress, which is given the power to establish them in the Constitution. The Constitution also empowers the Congress to establish the jurisdiction of the federal courts, determine the number of judges needed in the federal court system, to confirm Executive appointments of judges, and to manage the judiciary's
Week 5 2. First, the Parkers were contractually obligated to pay the late fees because the fees were not exorbitant and were part of the parties' lease contract. However, unless the lease contract specifically says that the late fees could be charged as additional rent, then the landlord could not consider the late fees additional rent. If the late fees cannot be considered additional rent, then the Parker's failure to pay
Snyder v. Phelps The First Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and prohibits the making of any law " impeding the free exercise of religion," infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, in the 20th century,
Determination of Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Canterbury vs. Spence Canterbury filed a lawsuit against Spence in the United States. In this lawsuit, Canterbury alleged that Dr. Spence had shown negligence when performing laminectomy on Canterbury and failed to inform him fully about the risks involved in the surgery. In addition, the lawsuit argued that Dr. Spence had negligent as he allowed Canterbury to remain unattended to following
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now