Top Law Schools

so exam in 8 hours. Can someone explain to me the anti-commandeering principle? So basically Congress can't force the state to carry out federal legislation, but according to the preemption principle federal law trumps state law? So what happens if in NY v US Congress had instead mandated that nuclear waste be disposed according to certain standards? Is the distinction basically that congress can force individuals to do something but can't force the state government to tell individuals to do the exact same thing?

Free internet cookie to people who respond before i go to sleep.

i thiiiink when federal legislation preempts, it's the feds enforcing it? but they can't force state people to enforce federal law. feds have to pay the states to do that instead

you prob want to wait for an answer from someone that took conlaw not a year ago though like i did. clearly i just don't want to work on my own material

thanks for the response. I think you're right.

The 10th Amendment grants states certain general police powers. It also means that the federal government cannot compel, coerce, or commandeer the states. This is usually done when Congress tells a state legislature that they HAVE to pass a law. Or, when they tell an executive of a state that he has to enforce a law that Congress has passed.

The problem with coercing the states into acting is typically under accountability. If shit goes downhill, the voters in the states are going to blame their own politicians, and the state will be taking the downfall for the federal government, who compelled the state to act in the first place.

chompchain wrote:so exam in 8 hours. Can someone explain to me the anti-commandeering principle? So basically Congress can't force the state to carry out federal legislation, but according to the preemption principle federal law trumps state law? So what happens if in NY v US Congress had instead mandated that nuclear waste be disposed according to certain standards? Is the distinction basically that congress can force individuals to do something but can't force the state government to tell individuals to do the exact same thing?

Free internet cookie to people who respond before i go to sleep.

Congress can't take police power from the states, is how I remember it.

I am a 0L but we covered this in my con law class and I believe it was that the federal govt cannot pass a statute requiring states to pass laws mandating something. The federal govt can pass a statute creating a regulatory structure at the state level that the federal govt funds, but they can't mandate that the state govts pass something.

dslslave wrote:The 10th Amendment grants states certain general police powers. It also means that the federal government cannot compel, coerce, or commandeer the states. This is usually done when Congress tells a state legislature that they HAVE to pass a law. Or, when they tell an executive of a state that he has to enforce a law that Congress has passed.

The problem with coercing the states into acting is typically under accountability. If shit goes downhill, the voters in the states are going to blame their own politicians, and the state will be taking the downfall for the federal government, who compelled the state to act in the first place.

This.

Keep in mind for your exam's sake that Congress can work around the anti-commandeering rule by using conditional spending, or passing generally applicable statutes.

The ACR works like this with pre-emption: If Congress passes a law disallowing something (weed, for example) and a state passes a law allowing it, the state law is not pre-empted because it would be forcing the state to take positive action, which violates anti-commandeering. As long as the state can sort of sit on its ass and not do something, the Court willl uphold.

On the other hand, if Congress passed a law allowing weed, a state couldn't pass a law banning weed.