Yes, Virginia (Tech), Our Government Is One of Limited Powers

By Dimino, Michael Richard | Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Summer 2001 | Go to article overview

Yes, Virginia (Tech), Our Government Is One of Limited Powers


Dimino, Michael Richard, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy


I. INTRODUCTION

The Framers of the Constitution designed the national government to be one of limited powers. Distrustful of the accumulation of power in any single body, the Framers provided for the division of powers both within the national, or general, government, and between the national government and the state governments. The separation of powers among the national government's legislative, executive, and judicial branches requires each branch to secure the acquiescence of the other two for the successful implementation of any policy, while the federalism that divides power between the national and the state governments prevents either from obtaining totalitarian control over the citizenry by limiting the authority of each to particular realms.(1) In this sense, "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will controul each other; at the same time that each will be controulled by itself."(2)

The Constitution limits the national government by granting it certain enumerated legislative powers(3) and providing that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."(4) By giving the national government specific powers, and not a general legislative power, the Framers made clear that "an act of Congress is invalid unless it is affirmatively authorized under the Constitution."(5)

Last Term in United States v. Morrison,(6) the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed this basic principle of American government. The Court, in a five-to-four opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that the provision of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA" or "Act")(7) giving victims of gender-motivated violence a private damages remedy(8) was unconstitutional. The Court rejected arguments that VAWA was authorized under the Commerce Clause(9) or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.(10) The Court found that although violence against women affected the national economy, such violence was in no way "commercial." Penalizing those who committed violence thus lay beyond the powers of the national legislature to regulate interstate commerce.(11) The Court also rejected the claim that the Act enforced the Fourteenth Amendment, reasoning that the Amendment protects against discriminatory action only by states. The protections of the Fourteenth Amendment "erect[] no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful."(12) As VAWA penalized purely private violent conduct, the Court did not give weight to claims that the states had violated women's rights by being indifferent to gender-motivated violence.(13)

Morrison reaffirmed that legislation justified under the Commerce Clause will be sustained if the legislation regulates "the channels of interstate commerce," "the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce," or "those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce."(14) The Court thus declined to repudiate years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence that accepted national regulation of activities "substantially" affecting interstate commerce.(15) As Justice Thomas argued in his Lopez concurrence, this position cannot be squared with the text of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 allows Congress to regulate activities that are, not those that affect, interstate commerce.(16)

The substantial effects test, however, raises the questions of how substantial an effect on interstate commerce is required for Congress to regulate a particular activity, and which body is to determine that sufficiency. In passing VAWA, Congress collected "a mountain of data ... showing the effects of violence against women on interstate commerce."(17) Morrison held that despite a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of congressional statutes, Congress's research and conclusion that violence against women substantially affected interstate commerce were insufficient to save VAWA from a constitutional challenge. …

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
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • 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

Yes, Virginia (Tech), Our Government Is One of Limited Powers
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?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    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

    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.