As explained below, Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional interests. The individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State. Maine , U. The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National Government and the States enhances freedom, first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived.
Federalism has more than one dynamic. The allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States.
Issued in a sentence
The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that States function as political entities in their own right. But that is not its exclusive sphere of operation. Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. United States , U. Thompson , U.
Stat 134 fall 2017
Some of these liberties are of a political character. Ashcroft , U. Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power.
True, of course, these objects cannot be vindicated by the Judiciary in the absence of a proper case or controversy; but the individual liberty secured by federalism is not simply derivative of the rights of the States. Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions.
See ibid. By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake. The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States.
States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism. See New York , supra , at An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate.
Separation-of-powers principles are intended, in part, to protect each branch of government from incursion by the others. The structural principles secured by the separation of powers protect the individual as well. In the precedents of this Court, the claims of individuals—not of Government departments—have been the principal source of judicial decisions concerning separation of powers and checks and balances. See U. Yet individuals, too, are protected by the operations of separation of powers and checks and balances; and they are not disabled from relying on those principles in otherwise justiciable cases and controversies.
In INS v. Chadha , U.
The procedure diminished the role of the Executive, but the challenger sought to protect not the prerogatives of the Presidency as such but rather his own right to avoid deportation under an invalid order. A cardinal principle of separation of powers was vindicated at the insistence of an individual, indeed one who was not a citizen of the United States but who still was a person whose liberty was at risk.
Chadha is not unique in this respect. Compare Clinton v. City of New York , U.
Byrd , U. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. Synar , U. Marathon Pipe Line Co. Sawyer , U. Schechter Poultry Corp. If the constitutional structure of our Government that protects individual liberty is compromised, individuals who suffer otherwise justiciable injury may object.
Just as it is appropriate for an individual, in a proper case, to invoke separation-of-powers or checks-and-balances constraints, so too may a litigant, in a proper case, challenge a law as enacted in contravention of constitutional principles of federalism. In this regard it is necessary to address a misconception in the position the Government now urges this Court to adopt.
The Government contends petitioner asserts only that Congress could not enact the challenged statute under its enumerated powers. Brief for United States 18 filed Dec. The public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, enacted in its capacity as sovereign, has been displaced by that of the National Government. The law to which petitioner is subject, the prosecution she seeks to counter, and the punishment she must face might not have come about if the matter were left for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to decide.
Indeed, petitioner argues that under Pennsylvania law the expected maximum term of imprisonment she could have received for the same conduct was barely more than a third of her federal sentence. The princi- ples of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment , both are expressed by it. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government, see New York , U.
See United States v. Lopez , U. The unconstitutional action can cause concomitant injury to persons in individual cases. An individual who challenges federal action on these grounds is, of course, subject to the Article III requirements, as well as prudential rules, applicable to all litigants and claims. Wright , U. Mellon , U. If, in connection with the claim being asserted, a litigant who commences suit fails to show actual or imminent harm that is concrete and particular, fairly traceable to the conduct complained of, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, the Federal Judiciary cannot hear the claim.
Lujan , U. These requirements must be satisfied before an individual may assert a constitutional claim; and in some instances, the result may be that a State is the only entity capable of demonstrating the requisite injury.
In this case, however, where the litigant is a party to an otherwise justiciable case or controversy, she is not forbidden to object that her injury results from disregard of the federal structure of our Government. Darby , U. This Court expresses no view on the merits of that argument.https://www.hiphopenation.com/mu-plugins/dept/estonia-dating-sites.php
- The Washington Post
Scope of the Fourth Amendment. Boyd v. United States Hester v. United States United States v. Lee Olmstead v. United States Abel v. United States Silverman v.
United States Katz v. United States Terry v.
- Navigation menu.
- Spirituality, Psychotherapy and Our Partnership with God;
- Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia..
Related Bond vs. the United States -- Opinion of the Supreme Court June 16, 2011 and Syllabus
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved