Printz v. United States(1997): 10th A., Commerce Clause, Original Intent

t This case involves a provision in the Brady Act of 1993, which restricts the ability to buy a gun. Under the Act, state Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) are forced to do background tests on gun buyers. Three CLEOs challenged the statute, claiming that congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional. The court struck down the provision of the statute in a 5-4 vote. More important than the decision is the debate over the ORIGINAL INTENT of the framers of the Constitution. Both sides rely on their interpretations of the Federalist Papers, and both claim to be following the original intent of the founders.

n Majority: SCALIA: the conclusion follows New York v. US, and says, “The Federal Gov. may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program”, and that the mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs runs “afoul of that rule.” Scaliarelies on Federalist No. 27, 39, 51, 33. Scaliaalso feels that the “necessary and proper” clause is answered in New York, saying that the COMMERCE CLAUSE authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly, it does not authorize Congress to regulate the state gov. regulation of interstate commerce. (Congress can do it, but can’t make the States do it!)

n Dissent: STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER: Stevensasserts that the “Founders intended to enhance the capacity of the Fed. Gov. by empowering it – as part of the new authority to make demands directly on individual citizens – to act through local officials.” Stevenssays, There is not a clause, sentence, or paragraph in the Constitution that supports the proposition that a local police officer can ignore a command contained in a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to an express delegation of power in enumerated in Article 1. The dissent refers to Federalist No. 27, 36, 45, 44 to show ORIGINAL INTENT. The dissent also says that the majority view would undermine most of the post-New Deal COMMERCE CLAUSE decisions

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 832