Federalism's benchmarks.(COMMENTARY)

The Washington Times (Washington, DC), June 30, 2002 | Go to article overview

Federalism's benchmarks.(COMMENTARY)


Byline: Terry Eastland, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Last week the Supreme Court ended its current term by sustaining the constitutionality of an Ohio program using vouchers at church-related

schools. The outcome could not confidently have been predicted, since the court is narrowly divided on church-state questions.

But what wasn't hard to guess was that the "conservative" position favoring the program that had been advanced by the Bush administration would be embraced by most if not all five of the "conservative" justices - they being Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. (As it happened, all five voted to support the program.) The reason this prediction was easy to make is that the conservative justices have often supported conservative positions on church and state.

The same is likely to occur when two other subjects that sharply divide the court - race and abortion - are brought before it. In such cases, you can anticipate that the Bush administration will advance a "conservative" position and that most if not all of the five conservatives will agree with it.

The model breaks down, however, when it comes to federalism, the last of the four big subjects often decided by the vote of single justice.

Consider the case handed down in late May pitting the South Carolina State Ports Authority against the Federal Maritime Commission. The issue was whether state sovereign immunity barred the commission from deciding a private complaint brought against the ports authority. The court, with the five conservatives constituting the majority, ruled in favor of South Carolina. It did so, having been told by the Bush administration to decide the case exactly opposite the way in did - in favor of the commission. And lo, the administration's position was taken by the four dissenters - Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Rarely does the administration strike out entirely with the conservatives and win the votes of only the liberals. But the South Carolina case didn't produce an odd voting pattern. The court divided exactly as it has in a series of federalism controversies dating back to 1995. Nor was the administration's position an exception to what it can be expected to advance in federalism cases.

Bear in mind that the solicitor general's office represents a particular government - the federal government. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Federalism's benchmarks.(COMMENTARY)
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.