Posted on 06/14/2005 11:20:23 AM PDT by Sandy
A states'-rights challenge to enforcement of the Endangered Species Act...failed Monday when the justices, without comment, refused to hear it.
The appeal had attracted widespread attention as the most potent of several efforts around the country to make the case that Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce did not extend to protecting animal or plant species that lack commercial value and that live in only one state....
[T]he justices' action on Monday provided the latest evidence that the Rehnquist Court's federalism revolution is on the wane....
[The case] concerned six endangered species of small insects that live only in caves and sinkholes in two counties in Texas....
Thwarted by the presence of the endangered species, the developers went to Federal District Court in Austin to challenge the constitutionality of applying the law to these circumstances. Both the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled against them.
The appeals court found that although the six species themselves did not have an impact on commerce, all endangered species taken as a whole did have such an impact....
In its petition for Supreme Court review...the developer said the appeals court had "seriously misunderstood" recent Supreme Court precedents that had limited Congress's authority under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The petition said the 5th Circuit had reduced the clause "to the intellectual joke that it had become" before the Supreme Court issued those decisions....
Lawyers for the developers filed a supplemental brief last week, after the Supreme Court's ruling in the marijuana case, arguing that "the need for this court's immediate intervention remains just as dire" as it was before. "The blow to our nation's federalist principles from leaving the decision below unreviewed would be severe," the brief said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I'm confused.
"[T]he justices' action on Monday provided the latest evidence that the Rehnquist Court's federalism revolution is on the wane.."
What "Revolution" are they talking about?
Every time I hear about this so-called "revolution", the only examples given are Morrison and Lopez, and one ADA case.
This is hardly a revolution in my opinion.
[T]he justices' action on Monday provided the latest evidence that the Rehnquist Court's federalism revolution is on the wane....
A refusal to review, without comment, is tantamount to a death sentence of that brief. No comment means you have no avenue to appeal and win.
This looks like a defeat for conservative principles, but I have not read the ruling to see if it is binding on the inferior court, but I suspect that it allows them to proceed, in any case.
What about property rights?
I wouldn't call it a revolution either. More like baby steps in a general direction. Seminole Tribe, Alden v Maine, Printz, Boerne, Kimel, Garrett, the Maritime Commission case. That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there's plenty more.
There is no ruling. Cert was denied, so the appeals court ruling stands.
And most of these cases are 11th amendment cases. And in general, I disagree with the courts decisions in these cases. In my opinion, limiting Federal power by invoking Sovereign immunity while allowing the offending law to stand is not defending Federalism at all.
Actually that *is* a defense of federalism. And besides, the cases that I listed aren't just about the 11th Amendment anyway. One's about commandeering state officials to enforce federal law. Several of the most important are about Congress's 14th amd. section 5 power.
I understand what you're saying. My argument is:
If Congress passes a law under section 5 of the 14th, then the proper Federalism issue is whether (or not) Congress has the power to do so. If not, then law should be struck. However if it passes muster, then I feel that every American deserves equal protection of that law.
Exempting state workers from protection of Federal law is unjust.
Wonder what they based this conclusion on. Seems like a pretty big leap of logic to me.
Well yeah, I agree with you there. That's sort of why I called the cases "baby steps" rather than a revolution; it was a start, certainly not a major overhaul.
Oh well. Guess you should've thought of that earlier, eh? "it really means nothing to me one way or the other"
Did you actually think Raich was just about marijauna? You know, there's a *reason* that this cert denial didn't come out until just now, immediately *after* Raich.
These are not the same imo. Not at all. Just go relax and get yourself another joint.
Of course they're the same, almost exactly in fact. Read them. I'll await your Compare and Contrast report. :-)
Good researcher you are
Yeah, it was pretty tough to click on my Pings page and then scroll down to your name.
But telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own property just because of some bugs is another matter. That's ridiculous. It might make more sense if the bugs were a pest, but all this fuss over protecting them? Since when do bugs have rights?
Whether you admit it or not, the pot case did have far reaching consequences on the entire war on drugs. Unless we first say there can be no federal war on drugs at all (blame Reagan I guess), then we can't exactly just say Well, we like pot so we are okay with that one. There should be some consistency and consideration for WHICH rule we are going to live by.
No kidding; that was my original point. Remember? Consistency would be recognizing that the ramifications of *both* cases are the same because the Constitutional question and outcome are the same in both. Or didn't you read them yet to notice that fact? Either you approve of the post-New Deal judicially-created Constitution, or you don't. Or maybe "it really means nothing to you one way or the other". Whichever. Pick *one*.
I would say that the court has once again extended the limits of the Commerce Clause but they have become so elastic they don't exist any more, almost like limits to federal court powers.
SCOTUS just reads my posts John. It's that regulatory scheme prong again. You are correct however, states rights is dead except in esoteric circumstances where SCOTUS thinks the federal intermedling lacks a rational basis reasonable necesary to carry out the purpose of its national schemes. The Court langauge may not be exactly worded that way, but that is functionally where we are at. I approve because this nation cannot effectively function, or achieve national goals in the modern intertwined mobile age, with anything different. When Constitutional clauses become dysfunctional, they atrophy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.