Reason.com
Rehnquist's Real Legacy
Over at Salon, legal historian Mark Tushnet writes:
Rehnquist's signature issue as a Supreme Court justice was federalism -- the allocation of some powers to the national government and others to state governments. When he joined the court he was the only justice who cared about limiting Congress' power, and he succeeded in putting the existence of those limits back on the constitutional table. In 1972 the court had only one option when a national law was challenged as being beyond Congress' power under the constitution's "commerce clause": Uphold the law. After Rehnquist, the court has the option of invalidating the law. That's a real achievement.
Whole thing here (sitting through an ad or sub. req.).
I interviewed Tushnet for our July issue. That and other Reason Rehnquistania online here.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|9.6.05 @ 4:14PM|#
There's a great op/ed piece in the WSJ today along similar lines by Randy Barnett of the ill-fated Gonzales v. Reich.
R C Dean|9.6.05 @ 5:19PM|#
Well, if his legacy is supposed to be revived federalism, then I would say his legacy predeceased him by a couple of months.
|9.6.05 @ 7:31PM|#
Fighting the good fight
for federalism and rights
seems futile these days.
|9.7.05 @ 5:10AM|#
bush had rehnquist killed :D
|9.7.05 @ 8:42AM|#
I do respect Rhenquist for being the Justice who at least revived the concept, but I agree with RC that federalism is a concept that hasn't taken hold in the SCOTUS. That's to be expected, however. In the original design, the SCOTUS was not intended to be the safe-guard for federalism. The primary check was intended to be the Senate, whose members were to be directly responsible to state governments, not the electorate. The secondary, ultimate check was the right of secession that Lincoln and the Republicans so thoroughly destroyed with the initiation of terror tactics.
So while I recognize Rhenny didn't actually accomplish alot, he fought the good fight in a battle that Jefferson and his ilk would have easily predicted to have been a loser from the start. After all, SCOTUS Justices are picked by federal politicians - if you can trust them to appoint principled jurists, you wouldn't need the principled jurists to restrain them in the first place...