| | Justice Kennedy, who as of 1997 was the pivotal fifth or "swing" vote on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], has also embraced federalism. "[F]ederalism was the unique contribution of the Framers to political science and political theory. Though on the surface the idea may seem counter-intuitive, it was the insight of the Framers that freedom was enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one."<ref> ''United States v. Lopez'', 514 U.S. 549, 576 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (citing Friendly, “Federalism: A Foreword,” 86 Yale L. J. 1019 (1977) and G. Wood, ''The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787'', pp. 524-532, 564 (1969).)</ref> | | Justice Kennedy, who as of 1997 was the pivotal fifth or "swing" vote on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], has also embraced federalism. "[F]ederalism was the unique contribution of the Framers to political science and political theory. Though on the surface the idea may seem counter-intuitive, it was the insight of the Framers that freedom was enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one."<ref> ''United States v. Lopez'', 514 U.S. 549, 576 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (citing Friendly, “Federalism: A Foreword,” 86 Yale L. J. 1019 (1977) and G. Wood, ''The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787'', pp. 524-532, 564 (1969).)</ref> |
| − | Since that ruling there have been many decisions by the Supreme Court and lower courts limiting federal power to interfere with state sovereignty in fields of traditional state control. For example, The Fifth Circuit held that "[w]here Congress aims to change the usual constitutional balance between the states and the federal government, it must make unmistakably clear its intention to do so in the statute’s language." ''Premiere Network Servs. v. SBC Comm.'', 440 F.3d 683, 690 n.8 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing ''Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police'', 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) and ''Gonzales v. Oregon'', 546 U.S. 243 (2006), emphasis added). | + | Since that ruling there have been many decisions by the Supreme Court and lower courts limiting federal power to interfere with state sovereignty in fields of traditional state control. For example, The Fifth Circuit held that "[w]here Congress aims to change the usual constitutional balance between the states and the federal government, it must make unmistakably clear its intention to do so in the statute’s language." ''Premiere Network Servs. v. SBC Comm.'', 440 F.3d 683, 690 n.8 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing ''[[Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police]]'', 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) and ''[[Gonzales v. Oregon]]'', 546 U.S. 243 (2006), emphasis added). |