Supreme Court Cases and the Concept of Federalism - Essay Example

First Last Number 23 November Supreme Court Cases and the Concept of Federalism. How they relate to the Federalists 10, 46 or 78 Arguments. INTRODUCTION Laws are regarded as a set of rules and regulations that guide the activities conduct by an individual in a specific society. Federalism is such a governmental system, which represents the involvement of two different governmental levels in the context of protecting the interests of the citizens. Thus, the concept of federalism reveals that the distinct governmental powers possess the powers to enforce legal provisions in different scenarios (DeLorenzo, “Federalism in U.S. Government”). THESIS STATEMENT Based on the above context, the assignment intends to explore the context of federalism in the provided three Supreme Court cases including Gonzalez V. Raich (2005), South Dakota V. Texas (1987) and Lawrence V. Texas (2003). Moreover, the discussion will also highlight how these cases relate to the Federalists 10, 46 or 78 arguments. DISCUSSION OF THREE SUPREME COURT CASES AND THE CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM The case of Gonzalez v. Raich (2005) is mainly related to the legal medical use of marijuana. In relation to this case, it can be ascertained that during the year 1996, California law passed the ‘Compassionate Use Act’, authorizing the use of marijuana for medical treatment. On the other hand, Controlled Substances Act (CSA) banned the use of the same. This difference in the viewpoints persisting between California law and CSA eventually led towards a conflicting situation. The major issue, which emerged in relation to the case, is mainly determining whether Congress is having the power to regulate marijuana production agreeable to the interstate commerce clause. Specially mentioning, this case addresses the federalism concept in the form of witnessing the involvement of both federal government and individual states concerning the regulation of producing and consuming marijuana (Oyez, Inc., “GONZALES v. RAICH”). South Dakota v. Dole (1987) is related to the case wherein South Dakota sued district court against Dole and the US government in relation to the violation of Section 158. This particular Section sets the constitutional limits on Congress regarding the power based on “21st amendment to the US constitution.” In accordance with the South Dakota law, individuals aged 19 and above are permitted to buy beer having 3.2% alcohol. The case illustrates the dispute regarding the state and the power of federal government in relation to the implementation of a minimum drinking usage. Again, the involvement of state as well as the federal government in this jurisdiction issue relates the aforesaid case with the concept of federalism (Thomson Reuters, “SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)”). Based on the case of Lawrence V. Texas (2003), it can be found that Harris county police, Texas reported the trading of unlawful trading weapons in the apartment of Lawrence. After searching the entire apartment, it can be found out that Lawrence and Garner were engaged in performing homosexual activities. Thus, both are found to be violating the provision of the Texas law of “deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man).” In this case, the defendant Lawrence raised voices against the provision with respect to the violation of ‘Equal Protection Clause.’ In this regard, the Supreme Court advocates that the state laws prohibited the same sex sodomy are found to be illegal, which again infringes the right to privacy of citizen (Lawnix, “Lawrence v. Texas – Case Brief Summary”). ANALYSIS OF THE OPINIONS MADE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE THREE CASES In South Dakota v. Dole case, the Supreme Court made a decision by stating that the deceased party represented the proper use of Congressional authority over the spending clause and considered the fact that statutes will not infringe over the right of the states. Based on the statement made by the Justice Brennan “Regulation of the minimum age of purchasers of liquor falls squarely within the ambit of those powers reserved to the states by the 21st Amendment”, the Supreme Court held different remedial actions, making a mandate of promoting overall societal welfare as well as the prevailing conditions (Thomson Reuters “SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)”; Miron and Tetelbaum “Did the Federal Drinking Age Law Save Lives?”). In relation to the case of Gonzalez v. Raich, the majority decision made by the Supreme Court was held based on the other case of Wickard v. Filburn. In relation to this case, the Court opined that Congress do not possess any power with respect to the Commerce Clause. The majority opinion or decision made by the Supreme Court eventually revealed that with the interstate production of marijuana, the intrastate commerce gets affected by a considerable extent. With regards to the statement of Justice Thomas “Respondents local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not Commerce.... among the several States”, the Supreme Court reached into a conclusion that intrastate manufacturing of medical marijuana will impose significant impact on the demand as well as supply of marijuana, which appears under the regime of Congress’ power to regulate the case (Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir, Tolbert, Harpham and Champagne 515). In accordance with Lawrence V. Texas case, it can be ascertained that John Lawrence and Tyron Garner was arrested in the year 1998 after found guilty against the conduct of homosexual activities. These two men were convicted for the violation of Texas ‘Homosexual Conduct’ law, which led towards the crime of having sex with same gender. During the year 1999, Lambda, the legal representative of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, presented legal arguments to the 14th national court by appealing in Houston about demanding mens’ conviction. In this regard, the majority opinion in relation to this case signified that the homosexual conduct should have protected the liberty rights and were entitled to be constitutionally protected. Thus, the Supreme Court took a decision in favor of presenting the new legislation with respect to the perseverance of lesbian and American gay civil rights in the form of sticking down the “Homosexual Conduct” Law (Canon, Coleman and Mayer 302). RELATION OF THE EACH SUPREME COURT CASE WITH THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN FEDERALIST 10, 46 AND 78 The arguments presented in Federalist 10 mainly decipher the ratification of the US constitution in alignment with the case of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner v. Texas. The right of police in entering into private residents seems to be questioned in this regard. Besides, in the above discussed case, both Lawrence and Garner were found to be arrested for the conduct of sexual act. The defender i.e. Lawrence argued about the decisions of the court regarding the perseverance of lesbian and American gay civil rights. This eventually finds alignment with the arguments presented in Federalist 10 (Nelson and Higgins “Summary and Analysis of Essay 10: The Federalist Papers Study Guide”). In relation to the case of Gonzales v. Raich, the Compassionate Use Act allowed the people to use marijuana for medical purpose with due concern of the arguments portrayed by the medical professionals. Whereas, the Controlled Substances Act of Federal drug law, strongly opposed to the above stated fact. Raich, a resident of California, experienced serious health problems from five years by using marijuana, depending on the two caregivers for providing the same. Raich, in this regard, made lawsuit against Monson for producing marijuana at her home. Thus, the intention of both Raich and Monson about making the use of marijuana with respect to medical purposes confronted the ruling and federal law, which clearly indicated that the provided case is in alignment with the arguments deciphered in Federalist 46. Thus, it can be argued that the authority and power of federal government will not threaten by the power that has been reserved and authorized to the state government (Nelson and Higgins “The Federalist Papers Study Guide: Essay 46 Summary and Analysis.”). South Dakota v. Dove case is quite related to the arguments deciphered in Federalist 10. This can be justified with reference to the fact that the US government constitution is capable of providing remedial measures to resolve the disputes and damages that may arise due to differences persisting in the principles of the constitution. Thus, in the case of South Dakota v. Dove, the US government held to protect and promote the social economic interests of the citizens (Nelson and Higgins “Summary and Analysis of Essay 10: The Federalist Papers Study Guide”). GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF MINORITY GROUP Every inhabitant of the US possesses different characteristics that make them dissimilar from others. In this regard, it can be stated that people with distinctive personality traits amid the major class levels of a society are considered as minority groups. Notably, a few of the minority forces occupy the place of niche position in a specific society, requiring special care and regime to protect the interests of such groups. Thus, in this regard, the federal legislative governmental level, which represents and holds the ultimate authority of states, will best protect the interests of minority groups in the form of varied ways. These ways entail framing policies that tend to distinguish people based on the factors like caste and ethnic background and promoting group classifications among others (Yarbrough, “Protecting Minority Rights”). CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis and discussion, it can be affirmed that the debate concerning liberty vs. equality can be better demonstrated in the form of evaluating the three provide cases that have been elaborately discussed above. It can be inferred in this regard that the US federation law imposes massive impact over the diverse cultural individuals of the nation, making a wide distinction over the aforesaid two aspects. Additionally, the concept of federalism in the US mainly determined the constitutional relationship between state and federal government. Specially mentioning, in relation to the case of Gonzalez v. Raich, respective power has been shifted from the states to the national governments, which signified that the factor of equity has been given foremost importance by preventing the limited use of marijuana and empowering the regime of restricting the use of the same. Conversely, in accordance with the case of South Dakota v. Texas, it can also be affirmed that liberty and equality are the two key values in the US political scenario, out of which, equity has been given due importance for promoting the welfare of the entire society. In relation to the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which is related to the protection of humanity rights, it can be found that the liberty factor has been given utmost importance by making opinions of protecting the special liberty rights of the people engaged in conducting homosexual activities. Thus, the concept of liberty implies the bounded or the potential obligations of the citizens and provides the people a specific freedom of action without having the obligation of others. On the other hand, the notion of equity provides specific legal framework that are equally applicable to all individual regardless holding superior powers in a society. Thus, in conclusion, it can be asserted that based on the above discussed three cases, the factor of liberty seems to be quite dominative in nature than the equity factor by a certain extent. Works Cited Canon, David T., John J. Coleman and Kenneth R. Mayer. The Enduring Debate: Classic and Contemporary Readings in American Politics. New York: WW Norton & Company Incorporated, 2013. Print. DeLorenzo Joshua. “Federalism in U.S. Government.” 2000. Web. 23 Nov 2014. Ginsberg Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, Margaret Weir, Caroline J. Tolbert, Edward J. Harpham and Anthony Champagne. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. New York: W W Norton & Company Incorporated, 2013. Print. “Lawrence v. Texas – Case Brief Summary.” Lawnix. 2013. Web. 23 Nov 2014. Miron, Jeffrey A. and Elina Tetelbaum. “Did the Federal Drinking Age Law Save Lives?” 2014. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. Nelson Brittany and Christopher Higgins. “Summary and Analysis of Essay 10: The Federalist Papers Study Guide.” 2011. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. Nelson Brittany and Christopher Higgins. “The Federalist Papers Study Guide: Essay 46 Summary and Analysis.” 2011. Web. 23 Nov 2014. “GONZALES v. RAICH.” Oyez, Inc. 2014. Web. 23 Nov 2014. “SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)” Thomson Reuters. 2014. Web. 23 Nov 2014. Yarbrough Tinsley. “Protecting Minority Rights.” 2013. Web. 23 Nov 2014. Read More