The United States Supreme Court has had a shift towards respecting
state power–this certainly will be one of the legacies of the
Rehnquist Court. Several recent cases have struck down federal
legislation because Congress exceeded its power, specifically under the
Commerce Clause.
Article I
of the Constitution provides for limited Congressional power.
However, Congress keeps pushing what it can do, and the Court, for the
most part, rarely strikes down a law because it exceeds Congressional
power. Only recently have things begun to change.
In fact,
this respect for federalism and the Constitution has been a sore
subject for individuals such as Senator Specter (R-PA). He has
repeatedly been critical of the Court for striking down laws based on
the Commerce Clause. For example, he was real upset that the
Court struck down a provision in the Violence Against Women Act and
made this point known during Chief Justice Roberts confirmation
hearings.
Instead of respecting the fact that the Court restrains
unfettered power, he, along with Congressional members of both parties,
complain that the Court is being activist and not respecting Congress.
In
regard to the recent shift towards limiting Congressional power
(especially under the Commerce Clause), Senator Specter expressed his
displeasure in a New York Times article:
He
[Specter] said he was particularly upset that the court, under Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist, had questioned lawmakers’ “method of
reasoning” in striking down laws.
“Well, that’s just another way of saying Congress is incompetent,” Mr.
Specter said, adding, “I’m not suggesting we pack the court, but at a
minimum, the Senate is determined to confirm new justices who respect
their role.”
The Constitution may be flawed in some
ways, but many of its limits on federal power have been
drastically weakened by those charged with respecting this guiding
document. Now that the Court is respecting the Constitution in
Commerce Clause cases, Congress is getting upset. To them,
how dare the Supreme Court take power away from Congress, even if the
power is unconstitutional!
Respecting the Constitution is not judicial activism, disregarding it like Specter would like is
judicial activism. Specter is right about one thing: we need
justices that respect their roles. However we also need Senators
to respect the role of justices as well. Their role is to interpret the
Constitution and statutes, not to formulate public policy. No
document, not even the Constitution, can be drafted in a manner that
can keep politicians and judges from going too far in some areas.
Fortunately, recent Commerce Clause jurisprudence shows that those
charged with interpreting the Constitution are still willing to
restrain federal power.
