Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Supreme Court's Federalism: Fig Leaf for Conservatives

Herman Schwartz

Washington College of Law, American University

Throughout American history, states' rights have been used as a cover to hide less respectable interests such as race, class, religion, power, and money. Because reforms in racial justice and social equality have come primarily from the federal government as a result of the Civil War and the New Deal, states' rights have usually been used to promote conservative interests. Today's conservative Supreme Court majority, led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, has imposed limitations on federal power to curtail the rights of women, religious groups, the elderly, racial minorities, and other disadvantaged groups. Asserting a wide range of benefits from strong state sovereignty, few of which do in fact exist, the conservatives have shrunk the scope of the commerce clause, developed implied limitations on federal authority, and narrowly construed the Civil War amendments. Yet, despite their federalist rhetoric, the conservative justices have not hesitated to strike down state and local legislation and other action enhancing individual rights—and this notwithstanding their frequent criticism of judicial activism in other areas.

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 574, No. 1, 119-131 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/000271620157400109


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
PubliusHome page
W. T. Gormley Jr.
Money and Mandates: The Politics of Intergovernmental Conflict
Publius, January 1, 2006; 36(4): 523 - 540.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]