The Rehnquist Court and the Political Dynamics of Federalism

Perspectives on Politics

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 233-248

  Pickerill, J Mitchell ^a   Clayton, Cornell W ^a  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22144496650     PISSN: 15375927     EISSN: 15410986     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1537592704040125     Document Type: Article

References (123)

1. Ackerman, Bruce. 1991. We the People. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
2. D., Adamany, David, Realignment in American Politics: Toward a Theory, The Supreme Court's role in critical elections, Bruce A., Campbell, Richard J., Trilling, Austin, University of Texas Press, (1980), 229-259
3. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena. 515 U.S. 200(1995).
4. Alden v. Maine. 527 U.S. 706(1999).
5. Balkin, Jack M., and Sanford Levinson. 2001. Understanding the constitutional revolution. Virginia Law Review 87: 6, 1045–109.
6. P.A., Beck, Paul Allen, Communications: Critical elections and the Supreme Court: Putting the cart after the horse, American Political Science Review, (1976), 70, 3, 930-932
7. A.M., Bickel, Alexander M., The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, (1962)
8. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett. 531 U.S. 356(2001).
9. Brest, Paul, Sanford Levinson, J. M. Balkin, and Akhil Reed Amar, eds.2000. Process of Constitutional Decisionmaking: Cases and Materials. 4th ed. Gaithersburg, Md.: Aspen Publishers.
10. I., Budge, Ian, D., Robertson, David, D., Hearl, Derek, Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies, New York, Cambridge University Press, (1987)
11. Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.
12. S.G., Calabresi, Steven G., A government of limited and enumerated powers: In defense of, Michigan Law Review, (1995), 94, 3, 752-831
13. Calabresi, Steven G. 2001. Federalism and the Rehnquist Court: A normative defense. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 574: 1, 24–36.
14. A.M., Cammisa, Anne Marie, Governments as Interest Groups: Intergovernmental Lobbying and the Federal System, Westport, Conn., Praeger Publishers, (1995)
15. P., Chen, Paul, Paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, 27 August–1 September, The federalism decisions: The judicial counterpart to the conservative devolutionary agenda, (2003)
16. J.H., Choper, Jesse H., Judicial Review and the National Political Process: A Functional Reconsideration of the Role of the Supreme Court, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, (1980)
17. J.H., Choper, Jesse H., Taming Congress's power under the Commerce Clause: What does the near future portend?, Arkansas Law Review, (2003), 55, 4, 731-793
18. Cigler, Beverly A. 1993. Challenges facing fiscal federalism in the 1990 s. PS: Political Science and Politics 26: 2, 181–6.
19. City of Boerne v. Flores. 521 U.S. 507(1997).
20. C.W., Clayton, Cornell W., The Politics of Justice: The Attorney General and the Making of Legal Policy, Armonk, N.Y., M. E. Sharpe, (1992)
21. C.W., Clayton, Cornell W., Law, politics, and the New Federalism: State attorneys general as national policymakers, Review of Politics, (1994), 56, 3, 525-553
22. C.W., Clayton, Cornell W., The Supreme Court in American Politics: New Institutionalist Interpretations, Law, politics, and the Rehnquist Court: Structural influences on Supreme Court decision making, Howard, Gillman, Cornell, Clayton, Lawrence, University of Kansas Press, (1999), 151-177
23. C.W., Clayton, Cornell W., The supply and demand sides of judicial policy-making (Or, why be so positive about the judicialization of politics?), Law and Contemporary Problems, (2002), 65, 3, 69-85
24. Clayton, Cornell W., and David May. 2000. A political regimes approach to the analysis of legal decisions. Polity 32: 2, 233–52.
25. Clayton, Cornell W., and Jack McGuire. 2001. Litigation strategy and policymaking in the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Law and Public Policy 11: 1, 17–34.
26. Colker, Ruth, and James J. Brudney. 2001. Dissing Congress. Michigan Law Review 100: 1, 80–144.
27. College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666, (1999)
28. T.J., Conlan, Timothy J., And the beat goes on: Intergovernmental mandates and preemption in an era of deregulation, Publius, (1991), 21, 3, 43-69
29. Conlan, Timothy, and David R. Beam. 1992. Federal mandates: The record of reform and future prospects. Intergovernmental Perspective 18: 4, 7–11.
30. C., Copeland, Claudia, Reinventing the Environmental Protection Agency and EPA's water programs, Congressional Research Service Report. 22 March, 96–283 ENR, Available at www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/water/h20-20.cfm. Accessed on 26 March 2002, (1996)
31. Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council. 530 U.S. 363(2000).
32. B., Cushman, Barry, Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution, New York, Oxford University Press, (1998)
33. R., Dahl, Robert, Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker, Journal of Public Law, Fall, (1957), 6, 279-295
34. N., Devins, Neal, The federal-rights nexus: Explaining why Senate Democrats tolerate Rehnquist Court decision making but not the Rehnquist Court, University of Colorado Law Review, (2002), 73, 4, 1307-1336
35. J., Dinan, John, Paper presented at the annual conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 3–6 April, The consequences of the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions, (2003)
36. Donahue, John D. 1997. The Disunited States. New York: Basic Books.
37. Dunne, Finley Peter. 1901. Mr. Dooley's Opinions. New York: Harper.
38. Dworkin, Ronald. 1996. Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Dye, Thomas R. 1990. American Federalism: Competition Among Governments. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
40. Ely, John Hart. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
41. Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 1997. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
42. Eskridge, William N., Jr. 1993. The judicial review game. Northwestern University Law Review 88: 1, 382–95.
43. Ferejohn, John. 2002. Judicializing politics, politicizing law. Law and Contemporary Problems 65: 3, 41–68.
44. Fisher, Louis. 1988. Constitutional Dialogues: Interpretation as Political Process. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
45. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627, (1999)
46. Fried, Charles 1991. Order and Law: Arguing the Reagan Revolution: A Firsthand Account. New York: Simon & Schuster.
47. B., Friedman, Barry, The countermajoritarian problem and the pathology of constitutional scholarship, Northwestern University Law Review, Spring, (2001), 95, 933-954
48. Funston, Richard. 1975. The Supreme Court and critical elections. American Political Science Review 69: 3, 795–811.
49. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. 469 U.S. 528(1985).
50. Gates, John B. 1987. Partisan realignment, unconstitutional state policies, and the U.S.Supreme Court, 1837–1964. American Journal of Political Science 31: 2, 259–80.
51. J.B., Gates, John B., Supreme Court voting and realigning issues: A microlevel analysis of Supreme Court policymaking and electoral realignment, Social Science History, (1989), 13, 3, 255-283
52. J.B., Gates, John B., The Supreme Court and Partisan Realignment: A Macro- and Microlevel Perspective, Boulder, Colo., Westview Press, (1992)
53. Gillman, Howard. 2002. How political parties can use the courts to advance their agendas:Federal courts in the United States, 1875–1891. American Political Science Review 96: 3, 511–24.
54. M.A., Graber, Mark A., The nonmajoritarian difficulty: Legislative deference to the judiciary, Studies in American Political Development, (1993), 7, 1, 35-73
55. Gregory v. Ashcroft. 501 U.S. 452(1991).
56. Greenhouse, Linda. 2001 a. The High Court's target: Congress. The New York Times, 25 February, Section 4:3.
57. Greenhouse, Linda 2001 b. Will the Court reassert national authority? The New York Times, 30 September, Section 4:14.
58. D.H., Haider, Donald H., When Governments Come to Washington: Governors, Mayors, and Intergovernmental Lobbying, New York, Free Press, (1974)
59. Hamilton, Marci A. 2001. The elusive safeguards of federalism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 574: 1, 93–103.
60. Hammer v. Dagenhart. 247 U.S. 251(1918).
61. R.L., Hanson, Russell L., Politics in the American States: A Comparative Analysis, Intergovernmental relations, Virginia, Gray, Russell L., Hanson, Herbert Jacob. 7th, ed, Washington, D.C., CQ Press, (1999), 32-65
62. Henig, Jeffrey R. 1985. Public Policy and Federalism: Issues in State and Local Politics. New York: St. Martin's Press.
63. Hollings, Robert L. 1996. Reinventing Government: An Analysis and Annotated Bibliography. Commack, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers.
64. G.C., Jacobson, Gary C., Partisan polarization in presidential support: The electoral connection, Congress and the Presidency, (2003), 30, 1, 1-35
65. D., Kendall, Douglas, C., Lord, Charles, The Takings Project: A critical analysis and assessment of the progress so far, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, (1998), 25, 2, 509-587
66. Kettl, Donald F. 1994. Reinventing Government? Appraising the National Performance Review. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
67. Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents. 528 U.S. 62(2000).
68. Kincaid, John. 1998. The devolution tortoise and the centralization hare. New England Economic Review(May/June),13–40.
69. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Richard I. Hofferbert, and Ian Budge. 1994. Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
70. L.D., Kramer, Larry D., Putting the politics back into the political safeguards of federalism, Columbia Law Review, (2000), 100, 1, 215-293
71. Kramer, Larry D. 2001. The Supreme Court 2000 term: Foreword. Harvard Law Review 115: 4, 5–168.
72. Lasser, William. 1985. The Supreme Court in periods of critical realignment. Journal of Politics 47: 4, 1174–87.
73. W., Lasser, William, The Limits of Judicial Power: The Supreme Court in American Politics, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, (1988)
74. Leach, Richard H. 1970. American Federalism. New York: W. W. Norton.
75. Liebschutz, Sarah F., ed.2000. Managing Welfare Reform in Five States: The Challenge of Devolution. Albany, N.Y.: Rockefeller Institute Press.
76. MacKinnon, Catharine A. 2000. Disputing male sovereignty: On United States v. Morrison. Harvard Law Review 114: 1, 135–77.
77. T., Morris, Thomas, States before the U.S. Supreme Court: State attorneys general as amicus curiae, Judicature, (1987), 70, 5, 298-305
78. W.F., Murphy, Walter F., Congress and the Court: A Case Study in the American Political Process, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, (1962)
79. Murphy, Walter F. 1964. Elements of Judicial Strategy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
80. Nagel, Robert F. 1996. The future of federalism. Case Western Reserve Law Review 46: 3, 643–61.
81. R.P., Nathan, Richard P., Rockefeller Institute Bulletin, The devolution revolution: An overview, Albany, N.Y., Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, (1996), 5-13
82. National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. 301 U.S. 1(1937).
83. National League of Cities v. Usery. 426 U.S. 833(1976).
84. New York v. United States. 505 U.S. 144(1992).
85. Nivola, Pietro S. 2002. Tense Commandments: Federal Prescriptions and City Problems. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
86. D.M., O'Brien, David M., The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance, The Reagan judges: His most enduring legacy?, Charles O., Jones, Chatham, N.J., Chatham House Publishers, (1988), 60-101
87. Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, The Constitution in the year 2000: Choices ahead in constitutional interpretation, Report to the Attorney General, (1988)
88. D., Osborne, David, T., Gaebler, Ted, Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector, Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley, (1992)
89. Parden v. Terminal Railway. 377 U.S. 184(1964).
90. Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Company. 491 U.S. 1(1989).
91. Peterson, Paul E. 1995. The Price of Federalism. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
92. J.M., Pickerill, J. Mitchell, Leveraging federalism: The real meaning of the Rehnquist Court's federalism jurisprudence for states, Albany Law Review, (2003), 66, 3, 823-833
93. J.M., Pickerill, J. Mitchell, Constitutional Deliberation in Congress: The Role of Judicial Review in a Separated System, Durham, Duke University Press, (2004)
94. Pomper, Gerald M., ed.1980. Party Renewal in America: Theory and Practice. New York: Praeger Publishers.
95. Posner, Paul L. 1997. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: 1996 and beyond. Publius 27: 2, 53–71.
96. Posner, Paul L. 1998. The Politics of Unfunded Mandates: Whither Federalism? Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
97. Printz v. United States. 521 U.S. 898(1997).
98. Reagan, Ronald. 1987. Executive Order No. 12612 on federalism. Federal Register 52: 210, 685–8, 30 October.
99. Rich, Robert F., and William D. White, eds.1996. Health Policy, Federalism, and the American States. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
100. A.M., Rivlin, Alice M., Reviving the American Dream: The Economy, the States, and the Federal Government, Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press, (1992)
101. R., Rotunda, Ronald, The implications of the new Commerce Clause jurisprudence: An evolutionary or revolutionary court?, Arkansas Law Review, (2003), 33, 4, 795-846
102. Sapiro, Virginia, Steven J. Rosenstone, and the National Election Studies. 2001. Cumulative Data File, 1948–2000. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies.
103. Schroeder, Christopher H. 2001. Causes of the recent turn in constitutional interpretation. Duke Law Journal 51: 1, 307–61.
104. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida. 517 U.S. 44(1996).
105. Sherry, Suzanna. 1999. Some targets were larger than others. The Washington Post, 4 July, B4.
106. South Dakota v. Dole. 483 U.S. 203(1987).
107. Sunstein, Cass R., and Richard A. Epstein, eds.2001. The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
108. Tushnet, Mark. 1999. Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
109. Tushnet, Mark 2000. What is the Supreme Court's New Federalism? Oklahoma City University Law Review 25(Fall),927–43.
110. Tushnet, Mark 2003. The New Constitutional Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
111. United States v. Darby. 312 U.S. 100(1941).
112. United States v. E. C. Knight Company. 156 U.S. 1(1895).
113. United States v. Lopez. 514 U.S. 549(1995).
114. United States v. Morrison. 529 U.S. 598(2000).
115. U.S. Senate. 2000 a. Congressional Record. 106th Cong., 2d sess., 27 July. Vol. 146, pt. 100, rec. S 7758.
116. U.S. Senate 2000 b. Congressional Record. 106th Cong., 2d sess., 27 July. Vol. 146, pt. 100, rec. S 7598.
117. Van Alstyne, William. 2001. When can a state be sued? Popular Government 33: 3, 44–46.
118. Waltenburg, Eric N., and Bill Swinford. 1999. Litigating Federalism: The States Before the U.S. Supreme Court. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
119. H., Wechsler, Herbert, Principles, Politics, and Fundamental Law, The political safeguards of federalism: The role of the states in the composition and selection of the national government, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, (1961), 49-82
120. K.E., Whittington, Keith E., Taking what they give us: Explaining the Court's federalism offensive, Duke Law Journal, (2001), 51, 1, 477-520
121. K.E., Whittington, Keith E., Legislative sanctions and the strategic environment of judicial review, The International Journal of Constitutional Law, (2003), 1, 3, 446-474
122. Wickard v. Filburn. 317 U.S. 111(1942).
123. Yoo, John C. 1997. The judicial safeguards of federalism. University of Southern California Law Review 70(July),1311–405.