crossarmant wrote:So, with Nat'l League of Cities v. Usery and subsequently Garcia v. San Antonio Metro, we have the court saying that initially that the federal government must respect the sovereign nature of the state govts and cannot interfere with how they regulate, but then Garcia says, no that the Congress is essentially a federal branch and do not fully represent state sovereignty so judicial review of state regulations is allowed. And then Printz/NY v. US go on to essentially say that Feds cannot force states to comply with federal programs that infringe with state sovereignty (like setting a 21 yo drinking age) but can incentivise them with federal funding and that they cannot use state officials to enforce federal functions...
Do I have this right? Guch, you seem to have this stuff down.
Don't think the bolded is right. Usery
introduced the "traditional areas of state regulation" test to invalidate federal
legislation as violating the 10th Amdt. Garcia
, essentially holding that the Court would not utilize the 10th Amdt to police federalism. This was the state of doctrine until New York v. United State
, where the court held that Congress can't mandate that a state legislature to pass a law via federal statute; Printz
was similar in that Congress can't mandate state executives to enforce a federal statute. NY
, read together, can be thought of as holding that the 10th Amdt prohibits Congressional 'commandeering' of state legislatures and executives.