Judicial Philosophies in Collision: Justice Blackmun, Garcia, and the Tenth Amendment
Bryan H. Wildenthal
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Arizona Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 4, p. 749, 1990
Thomas Jefferson School of Law Research Paper No. 1028684
This essay offers a reflective overview of the Supreme Court's federalism cases from National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) to that decision's reversal just nine years later in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985). These cases illuminate the rise and fall of a constitutional doctrine and the intellectual evolution of the Justice, Harry A. Blackmun, who cast the crucial deciding vote in this field. Most intriguingly, they illustrate the collision, in an unusual context, of the different philosophies of judicial decisionmaking which have vied for supremacy on the modern Court.
The essay begins with an overview of the contradictory ideological labels applied to judicial behavior, moves directly to an analysis of the multi-faceted character of the Garcia decision, devotes the bulk of the discussion to tracing how Garcia grew out of the theoretical and practical tensions inherent in National League of Cities and its progeny, and concludes with a brief reflection on Garcia's philosophical significance and its vindication in the political process to which it paid homage.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 25
Keywords: federalism, state sovereignty, state autonomy, commerce power, constitutional law, national league of cities
JEL Classification: K10Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: November 9, 2007 ; Last revised: May 8, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.656 seconds