Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority to Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)

2019-10-18T20:11:27Z

Admin moved page Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority to Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)

Admin at 23:12, 17 October 2019

2019-10-17T23:12:49Z

Admin at 01:39, 5 July 2018

2018-07-05T01:39:40Z

Admin at 01:38, 5 July 2018

2018-07-05T01:38:54Z

Morgannoel18 at 09:00, 22 October 2017

2017-10-22T09:00:38Z

Admin at 15:52, 28 September 2017

2017-09-28T15:52:59Z

Nicole: Created page with "While the Tenth Amendment provides states, or the people, reserved powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states, the co..."

2017-01-27T15:32:50Z

Created page with "While the Tenth Amendment provides states, or the people, reserved powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states, the co..."

New page

While the Tenth Amendment provides states, or the people, reserved powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states, the courts have shifted in the interpretation of this amendment over time, sometimes moving toward a strict constructionist view and protecting states’ rights and at other times taking an expansive view of federal powers. However, these shifting interpretations are usually incremental and historically disparate. In ''Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority'' (1985), the Supreme Court made a strong redirection on federalism in interpreting the Tenth Amendment.

In a 5–4 vote in ''Garcia'', the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its decision in ''National League of Cities v. Usery'' (1976), which had said that the individual states were not subject to wage and hour protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act as applied “in areas of traditional governmental functions.” The ''Garcia'' Court, however, found that defining “traditional governmental functions” was a major task for the various courts. As such, it found ''National League'' an unworkable standard and rejected this balancing approach of determining whether an issue being regulated by Congress affected an individual state’s traditional governmental functions.

In replacing the balancing approach, the ''Garcia'' Court determined that individual states were protected from inappropriate federal regulations against the states by their participation in the federal political process. In other words, each state has elected U.S. senators and representatives who are expected to protect the state’s interests and rights. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority that these “political safeguards,” and particularly that of the states’ representation in the Senate, were sufficient constitutional safeguards of states’ rights. It was therefore presumed by the majority that the legislative process will work properly and therefore the courts will give great deference to the actions of Congress when it is a matter of regulating both states and private entities.

The dissent in ''Garcia'' argued that despite the claim of the majority opinion that this ruling secured the concept of federalism, the reality was that the Tenth Amendment was effectively reduced to “meaningless rhetoric” as to issues involving the Commerce Clause. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in dissent remarked that “the Court today surveys the battle scene of federalism, and sounds a retreat.” Federalism scholar Thomas Anton remarked, “Important and thoughtful as the ''Garcia'' ruling may be, we should not imagine that it signifies the end to the debate [over federalism]” (Anton 1989, 16). And John Kincaid accused the Court of abandoning “the field, abdicating its role as umpire of the federal system” (Kincaid 1993, 172). Indeed, the prediction of Justice William Rehnquist in his dissent that ''Garcia'' would not hold and that the respect for state sovereignty expressed in ''National League'' would again “in time command a majority of this Court” (''Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority'' 469 U.S. 528 [1985]). was soon to be fulfilled in the enduring federalism debate.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
Thomas Anton, ''American Federalism and Public Policy'' (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989); Mark R. Killenbeck, ''The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty: Constitutional History and Contemporary Issues'' (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002); John Kincaid, “Constitutional Federalisms Labor’s Role in Displacing Places to Benefit Persons,” ''P.S. Political Science and Politics'' 26, no. 2 (June 1993): 172; and Tinsley E. Yarbrough, ''The Rehnquist Court and the Constitution'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
|}

==== J. Gregory Frye and Michael W. Hail ====

SEE ALSO: [[National League of Cities v. Usery]]; [[Tenth Amendment]]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 In replacing the balancing approach, the ''Garcia'' Court determined that individual states were protected from inappropriate federal regulations against the states by their participation in the federal political process. In other words, each state has elected U.S. senators and representatives who are expected to protect the state’s interests and rights. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority that these “political safeguards,” and particularly that of the states’ representation in the Senate, were sufficient constitutional safeguards of states’ rights. It was therefore presumed by the majority that the legislative process will work properly and therefore the courts will give great deference to the actions of Congress when it is a matter of regulating both states and private entities.
-The dissent in ''Garcia'' argued that despite the claim of the majority opinion that this ruling secured the concept of federalism, the reality was that the Tenth Amendment was effectively reduced to “meaningless rhetoric” as to issues involving the Commerce Clause. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in dissent remarked that “the Court today surveys the battle scene of federalism, and sounds a retreat.” Federalism scholar Thomas Anton remarked, “Important and thoughtful as the ''Garcia'' ruling may be, we should not imagine that it signifies the end to the debate [over federalism]” (Anton 1989, 16). And John Kincaid accused the Court of abandoning “the field, abdicating its role as umpire of the federal system” (Kincaid 1993, 172). Indeed, the prediction of Justice [[Rehnquist, William|William Rehnquist]] in his dissent that ''Garcia'' would not hold and that the respect for state sovereignty expressed in ''[[National League of Cities v. Usery|National League]]'' would again “in time command a majority of this Court” (''Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority'' 469 U.S. 528 [1985]). was soon to be fulfilled in the enduring federalism debate.
+The dissent in ''Garcia'' argued that despite the claim of the majority opinion that this ruling secured the concept of federalism, the reality was that the Tenth Amendment was effectively reduced to “meaningless rhetoric” as to issues involving the Commerce Clause. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in dissent remarked that “the Court today surveys the battle scene of federalism, and sounds a retreat.” Federalism scholar Thomas Anton remarked, “Important and thoughtful as the ''Garcia'' ruling may be, we should not imagine that it signifies the end to the debate [over federalism]” (Anton 1989, 16). And John Kincaid accused the Court of abandoning “the field, abdicating its role as umpire of the federal system” (Kincaid 1993, 172). Indeed, the prediction of Justice [[Rehnquist, William|William Rehnquist]] in his dissent that ''Garcia'' would not hold and that the respect for state sovereignty expressed in ''[[National League of Cities v. Usery|National League]]'' would again “in time command a majority of this Court” (''Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority'' 469 U.S. 528 [1985]) was soon to be fulfilled in the enduring federalism debate.
 {| class="wikitable"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:38, 5 July 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	While the Tenth Amendment provides states, or the people, reserved powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states, the courts have shifted in the interpretation of this amendment over time, sometimes moving toward a strict constructionist view and protecting states’ rights and at other times taking an expansive view of federal powers. However, these shifting interpretations are usually incremental and historically disparate. In ''Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority'' (1985), the Supreme Court made a strong redirection on federalism in interpreting the Tenth Amendment.	+	While the Tenth Amendment provides states, or the people, reserved powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states, the courts have shifted in the interpretation of this amendment over time, sometimes moving toward a strict constructionist view and protecting states’ rights and at other times taking an expansive view of federal powers. However, these shifting interpretations are usually incremental and historically disparate. In ''Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority'' (1985), the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|Supreme Court]] made a strong redirection on [[federalism]] in interpreting the Tenth Amendment.

	In a 5–4 vote in ''Garcia'', the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its decision in ''National League of Cities v. Usery'' (1976), which had said that the individual states were not subject to wage and hour protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act as applied “in areas of traditional governmental functions.” The ''Garcia'' Court, however, found that defining “traditional governmental functions” was a major task for the various courts. As such, it found ''National League'' an unworkable standard and rejected this balancing approach of determining whether an issue being regulated by Congress affected an individual state’s traditional governmental functions.		In a 5–4 vote in ''Garcia'', the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its decision in ''National League of Cities v. Usery'' (1976), which had said that the individual states were not subject to wage and hour protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act as applied “in areas of traditional governmental functions.” The ''Garcia'' Court, however, found that defining “traditional governmental functions” was a major task for the various courts. As such, it found ''National League'' an unworkable standard and rejected this balancing approach of determining whether an issue being regulated by Congress affected an individual state’s traditional governmental functions.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 28 September 2017
Line 16:		Line 16:

	SEE ALSO: [[National League of Cities v. Usery]]; [[Tenth Amendment]]		SEE ALSO: [[National League of Cities v. Usery]]; [[Tenth Amendment]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:11, 18 October 2019
(No difference)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ==== J. Gregory Frye and Michael W. Hail ====
 SEE ALSO: [[National League of Cities v. Usery]]; [[Tenth Amendment]]
 [[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]