Changes

The [[Supreme Court]] is part of the federal [[government]], and until recently it has consistently expanded federal power.  This is self-serving and predictable.  Many, unfortunately, like to seize more power for themselves.  Also, many [[judge]]s tend to enjoy exercising authority over others.

The [[Supreme Court]] is part of the federal [[government]], and until recently it has consistently expanded federal power.  This is self-serving and predictable.  Many, unfortunately, like to seize more power for themselves.  Also, many [[judge]]s tend to enjoy exercising authority over others.

In ''Marbury v. Madison'' (1801), the [[Supreme Court]] grabbed the power to invalidate laws of [[Congress]] as un[[constitution]]al.  This is known as the principle of “judicial review.”  It affects the relative power of the [[Supreme Court]] with respect to [[Congress]].  It does not affect [[federalism]], because the [[state]]s were not involved.

In ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'' (1801), the [[Supreme Court]] grabbed the power to invalidate laws of [[Congress]] as un[[constitution]]al.  This is known as the principle of “[[judicial review]].”  It affects the relative power of the [[Supreme Court]] with respect to [[Congress]].  It does not affect [[federalism]], because the [[state]]s were not involved.

In ''McCulloch v. Maryland'' (1819), the [[Supreme Court]] decided a contest between the federal [[government]] and the state of [[Maryland]].  Guess which side the [[Supreme Court]] chose?  The federal [[government]], of course, because that is what the [[Supreme Court]] itself is.  It held that the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]] of the [[Constitution]] gives [[Congress]] broad powers.  The [[state]]s cannot interfere with a law passed by [[Congress]].  (In this case, [[Maryland]] tried to tax the national bank operating within its state.  The [[Court]] voided the tax.)

In ''[[McCulloch v. Maryland]]'' (1819), the [[Supreme Court]] decided a contest between the federal [[government]] and the state of [[Maryland]].  Guess which side the [[Supreme Court]] chose?  The federal [[government]], of course, because that is what the [[Supreme Court]] itself is.  It held that the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]] of the [[Constitution]] gives [[Congress]] broad powers.  The [[state]]s cannot interfere with a law passed by [[Congress]].  (In this case, [[Maryland]] tried to tax the national bank operating within its state.  The [[Court]] voided the tax.)

The expansion of federal power continued in the courts for another 150 years.  Not until Justice [[William Rehnquist]] arrived to the [[Supreme Court]] did the tone start to change.  Here are some more examples:

The expansion of federal power continued in the courts for another 150 years.  Not until Justice [[William Rehnquist]] arrived to the [[Supreme Court]] did the tone start to change.  Here are some more examples:

In ''Gibbons v. Ogden'' (1824), the [[Supreme Court]] interpreted the [[Commerce Clause]] to include virtually any business activity between two or more [[state]]s.  This greatly reduced the power of [[state]]s to regulate commerce.

In ''[[Gibbons v. Ogden]]'' (1824), the [[Supreme Court]] interpreted the [[Commerce Clause]] to include virtually any business activity between two or more [[state]]s.  This greatly reduced the power of [[state]]s to regulate commerce.

Now, much legislation by [[Congress]] is justified based on the [[Commerce Clause]].  For example, civil rights legislation banning discrimination in places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, restaurants, trains, airplanes) is based in the [[Commerce Clause]].  This was upheld by Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964).  Since almost anything affects commerce, it is difficult to find many limits on federal power anymore.

Now, much legislation by [[Congress]] is justified based on the [[Commerce Clause]].  For example, civil rights legislation banning discrimination in places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, [[restaurant]]s, [[train]]s, [[airplane]]s) is based in the [[Commerce Clause]].  This was upheld by [[Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States]] (1964).  Since almost anything affects commerce, it is difficult to find many limits on federal power anymore.

One limit that does still exist is in family law.  It remains outside the reach of the federal [[government]].  Education has also been beyond federal power, but President Bush’s No Child Left Behind has greatly expanded federal influence in this area.  Most types of crimes, including most murders, are still beyond federal power.  States alone can prosecute them, unless state lines were crossed during the commission of the crime.

One limit that does still exist is in family law.  It remains outside the reach of the federal [[government]].  Education has also been beyond federal power, but President Bush’s [[No Child Left Behind]] has greatly expanded federal influence in this area.  Most types of crimes, including most murders, are still beyond federal power.  States alone can prosecute them, unless state lines were crossed during the commission of the crime.

===Types of Federalism===

===Types of Federalism===

[[cooperative federalism]] (1932-1965): responsibilities of federal and state [[government]] are mixed.  Exclusive state power erodes.

[[cooperative federalism]] (1932-1965): responsibilities of federal and state [[government]] are mixed.  Exclusive state power erodes.

[[centralized federalism]] (1965-1972): federal [[government]] asserts its power in cities, health care, schools, etc., with large spending programs under President Johnson’s Great Society.  Also known as “[[creative federalism]].”

[[centralized federalism]] (1965-1972): federal [[government]] asserts its power in cities, [[health care]], schools, etc., with large spending programs under President Johnson’s Great Society.  Also known as “[[creative federalism]].”

[[new federalism]] (1972-today): [[conservative]] movement to return power and money back to the states, away from the federal [[government]].

[[new federalism]] (1972-today): [[conservative]] movement to return power and money back to the states, away from the federal [[government]].

#*The [[Bill of Rights]] contains many protections for criminal defendants.  Clearly, these rules will allow some guilty defendants to go free in order to minimize convictions of innocent persons.  Do you agree with this approach?

#*The [[Bill of Rights]] contains many protections for criminal defendants.  Clearly, these rules will allow some guilty defendants to go free in order to minimize convictions of innocent persons.  Do you agree with this approach?

#Is there a [[constitution]]al right for defendants to question potential jurors before trial?

#Is there a [[constitution]]al right for defendants to question potential jurors before trial?

#*The selection of the [[jury]] is often the most important aspect of a criminal trial.  The [[Sixth Amendment]] guarantees an “impartial jury,” so questions are asked of potential jurors to identify bias for one side or the other.  A jury that favors [[government]] is what the prosecutor wants; a jury skeptical of [[government]] is what the defendant seeks.  How much freedom should the defendant have in asking questions of potential jurors before they are chosen for the trial?  This process is known as “voir dire.”  In state court, defendants have much more leeway than in federal court, and the conviction rate is higher in federal court partly for this reason.  Should defendants have a right for their attorneys to question potential jurors during jury selection?

#*The selection of the [[jury]] is often the most important aspect of a criminal trial.  The [[Sixth Amendment]] guarantees an “impartial jury,” so questions are asked of potential jurors to identify bias for one side or the other.  A jury that favors [[government]] is what the prosecutor wants; a jury skeptical of [[government]] is what the defendant seeks.  How much freedom should the defendant have in asking questions of potential jurors before they are chosen for the trial?  This process is known as “[[voir dire]].”  In state court, defendants have much more leeway than in federal court, and the conviction rate is higher in federal court partly for this reason.  Should defendants have a right for their attorneys to question potential jurors during jury selection?

#Does the [[Fourth Amendment]] prohibit drug testing of all public school students?

#Does the [[Fourth Amendment]] prohibit drug testing of all public school students?

[[category:Homeschool Curriculum]]

[[category:Homeschool Curriculum]]