Private Party Standing to Raise Tenth Amendment Claims - Essay Example

Private Party Standing to Raise Tenth Amendment Claims. Section a) What are the most critical or significant issues or topics raised by the author(s) of the piece? Who has the right to invoke the tenth amendment? This is the main question she is raising. The principle controversy springs from the fact that the law gives both the state and the people the privilege to practice it. Taking a scenario where the opposing parties involve a private party against the state, the state is more likely to be favored.

The contentious issue addressed includes whether the courts should unanimously make a decision on the position of private parties against the state in regard to the tenth amendment. The second significant issue this paper discusses is the tenth amendment and its effect on state autonomy in regard to federal interference (Killenbeck 20). (b) What are the credentials/areas of expertise of the author(s) that make them qualified to discuss these issues and topics? The author is a law student at the Boston College.

The average law student in America has more than 70% percent grasp on constitutional proceedings within the syllabus covered. The author has also given substantial evidence to support her claims by deriving from the constitutional provisions and past court rulings. Her status as a student and the factual structures of her arguments are an exemplary attempt to combine both ethos and pathos to appeal to the reader and thus support her claims. Section 2: The author makes comments that have blanket assertions.

Take for instance, her claim that the Court should side with the minority and ignore the states’ interests in accordance with the Tenth Amendment claims. She supports her argument by saying that the language of the constitution supposes so. In view of all other rules of the constitution, the language used and the manner of presentation is subject to different interpretations by different courts in different states. The subjectivity of language and subsequent interpretations, therefore, renders her argument flimsy.

She also argues that the taxpayer cannot present a law suit on behalf of other taxpayers, making the federal government and the states look amateurish, but she does not mention that it is for this reason that the constitution allows them to be unions and civil rights groups to take care of this issue (Killenbeck 56). Section 3: Does the author rely upon, or cite, any empirical data to support the point of view? If so, describe and evaluate this data. The author has used empirical data in the form of years to present her arguments.

She has used years and dates to show the developments and deterioration of the Tenth Amendment since its conception. She starts with 1918 when the Amendment first started to gain meaning. She proceeds to 1941, where courts and other litigations stripped the Amendment off its powers and progresses to subsequent years where a series of Supreme Court decisions finally gave it power. The author gives evidence in the form of case studies, for instance Printz v. United States 1997 and Reno v. Condon.

Both these cases were in favor of the sovereignty of states (Hashmi 45). Section 4: a) What, if any, unexplained or unanswered questions became left for the reader to ponder, after he or she finishes the piece? She does not answer why even after all the cases that supreme courts have presided over, the TVA case still has a strong hold on modern day cases and that most judges refer to it when making rulings (Killenbeck 32). b) Does the author acknowledge in the piece that some questions remain to be explained or answered?

Yes, she acknowledges that there are still some questions left unanswered, for instance the issue in section 4 above. In addition to that, she does not give substantial reason as to why she supports private party standing on the Tenth Amendment. She gives only one reason which has many inconsistencies arising from the subjective nature of the argument. This is to say that the same reasons she has used to support her stand can be used against it (Hashmi 66). Section 5: What has the author said that appears to be most confusing?

The question of whether the federal government should be given leeway at the expense of state governments when it comes to the privileges of the Tenth Amendment appears to be most confusing. From the evidence she gives it is clear that most states prefer to remain as autonomous as possible. Finally, she goes on to validate her position on the issue. She does this by examining the standing doctrines, language used in the Tenth Amendment and the different interpretations of the courts on the same.

The language factor is confusing because in the clause the state, private parties and the federal government have power but with an undefined extent (Hashmi 83). Section 6: Does one see any contradictions within the piece? There are a few contradictions that can be cited in this peace. The author proclaims the sovereignty of the state and then goes ahead to give suggestions that will undermine its authority. For instance, at page 1542 lines 25-27, she argues that private parties should bring the Tenth Amendment’s claim as long as they can prove that there was personal harm inflicted.

She adds that by bringing the Tenth Amendment claim the private party is invoking their constitutional rights. In my opinion, the state and the federal government make jurisdictions. It is not rational for the state to take up a side that disproves of their competence. It is imperative, though unfair, that in a case of private parties against the state that the state should win. In this light, therefore, the Amendment should include a citation that allows the state power over private party claiming to close the argument of private party position in accordance with the Tenth Amendment debate once and for all (Killenbeck 54).

Section 7: What has the author said that I most disagree with? I disagree with the author that private parties should have the privilege according to the Tenth Amendment statement. This is because it will undermine the sovereignty of both the state and the federal government (Killenbeck 73). Works Cited Hashmi, Sohail H. State sovereignty: change and persistence in international relations. Penssylvania: Penssylvania state university press, 2001. Killenbeck, Mark Robert. The Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty:constitutional history and contemporary issues.

Oxford: Rowan and little fields, inc, 2002.