Federalism and Judicial Review

Monday, April 2, 2012

     Today was our last day discussing chapters from "Major Problems In American Constitutional History."  We discussed Chapter 14: Federalism and Judicial Review.  This chapter included documents from the 1940s, 60s, 90s, and 2000; which means that there was a lot of different topics covered, but all pertaining to the power and authority of the federal government and the court systems.  Document 1 was about the court case Wickard v. Filburn (1942).  In this case a farmer was accused of growing too much wheat.  The government had put a limit to the amount of wheat a farmer could grow after the Great Depression in order to try to regulate prices and fix the economy.  These government regulations sounded a lot like socialism to most people.  The farmer was growing the amount limited to the government, but then he grew extra in order to feed his animals with.  The Supreme Court actually ruled against the farmer and said that the the power of Congress is increased due to the economic state.  I don't think I necessarily agree with the Supreme Court's decision.... Why the economy was still trying to recover after the Great Depression, I do not believe that Congress still needed an increase in their power and authority.  By 1941 the economy was doing much better, so I am not sure that there still needed to be government regulations.  It is also strange that the court ruled in favor of the Congress because in many other cases the courts ruled against the government.
     Document 3 dealt with Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964).  This case dealt with a white hotel owner who did not want to serve African American clients.  A person who wanted to stay at the motel, but was turned away brought the court case up to the Supreme Court.  He said that is was discrimination to turn customers away based on the color of their skin.  During the trial, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause were used as justifications.  I believe that using the Fourteenth Amendment was a stronger justification than the Commerce Clause because it encompassed more people and said that everyone is equal and can rent a hotel room.  It was said that about 75% of the people who stayed at that hotel were from out of state.  The defense, in return, used the Thirteenth Amendment and said that he was being forced into slavery by being forced to serve someone that he did not want to.  This case contested the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The act was contested very quickly because the same year that it was put into effect there was already a court case using it as leverage.  The court decided that Congress was acting within its jurisdiction dealing with the Interstate Commerce Clause.  The motel was ordered by the court to receive business for anyone who wanted it.  Personally, I do not understand what the big deal is and why the motel owners did not want to serve non-white costumers.  Like many other businesses of the time, they could have added a section to their motel for non-white patrons.  If the company did this they could still make money from anyone who wanted to rent a room.
     Document 5 was United States v. Lopez (1995).  This case challenged the "gun-free" school zone act.  The decision said that the federal government cannot set a law saying that students could not carry weapons to school.  We discussed this court case in relation to President Obama's health care legislation.  We talked about how allowing guns in schools could make the price of health insurance go up and how students of younger ages are so dramatic, that if they were allowed guns in schools there would definitely be more shootings and killings.  This court case made a more limited federal government and was also a significant turning point toward a more conservative court.
     United States v. Morrison (2000) was Document 7.  This case deals with the rape of a female student by two male football players at a college.  The victim took the case to federal courts and the Supreme Court said that the violence against the Women Act was unconstitutional.  I think the make-up of the Supreme Court had a lot to do with how this case was decided.  At the time, only two women in the Supreme Court were women.  I believe, if there were more women that the case would have been decided differently.  The court would have been more in favor of the victim.  However, since there were only two women in the Supreme Court, I believe, that they ruled more like the men in order to make a point that even though they were women, they could decide things without making any judgements. I also wonder how this court case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court, since it was a matter of rape.  Usually those types of cases are handled by the lower courts.  I think Congress overstepped its bounds by making it a federal case.  I believe that this case could have easily been handled in the lower courts.
     There were two essays at the end of this chapter.  Essay one deals with the Constitutions and the Founding Fathers.  The author states that since federalism mattered to the Founding Fathers it should matter to the Supreme Court.  Then the class went into a discussion on if we believed that the Supreme Court should try to figure out what the Founding Fathers meant on certain issues in the Constitution and how the Founding Fathers would think about current constitutional issues.  I think the majority of the class agreed that the Supreme Court should look a the Constitution as a living document.  The Founding Fathers had no idea how big the country would grow, what technology would lead to, or other important aspects.  If the courts and the people look at the Constitution and constantly try to figure out what the Founding Fathers meant on every little detail, the government would get nowhere!  Every way a person looks at the Constitution is an interpretation because no one knows for sure what the Founding Fathers believed.  The Constitution was written specifically in a way so that people can make changes to it over time, so it is a living document.
     Essay two talked more about the Morrison (2000) case.  The author had a very negative outlook on the ruling of the case.  The author (a woman) stated that the Supreme Court got the decision wrong because it didn't use equal rights.  The woman dropped out of college because she was raped and the two football players were not punished.  I agree and disagree with the author.  I agree that the Supreme Court got it wrong because the football players got no punishment whatsoever.  The court found the boys guilty, but gave them no punishment.  That is basically telling everyone in the country that it is okay to rape someone because it is not that big of a deal.  I disagree with this author because she stated that the court did not use the equal rights.  I believe that if the victim wanted to drop out of college, that was completely her own decision.  She could have very easily transferred to another college and completed her degree if she so desired to.  One must also take into account that the author of this essay is a woman.  A male author might have had the same thoughts, but I believe a male author would have used different reasons for why he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision.  As I have learned throughout many of my classes, it is all about perspective and background knowledge!
     Another topic that we covered in class was how to write a good book review.  A book REVIEW is much different than a book REPORT (which I have gotten confused several times).  A good book review should be about 1200-1500 words (or 3-4 pages).  This should include: a brief background on the author, the topic(s), scope or period of time covered, the thesis, the readability (how entertaining it is), the intended audience, any supplemental material, and if the author of the book review would recommend the book.  Professor Butters told the class that it is best to make a "Praise Sandwich" out of our book reviews.  This means starting with the positive aspects of the book, then have some criticism, then end with more positive comments.  I never thought of approaching a book review like this, but now it makes sense.  Many times when a person writes a book review it is either mainly positive or mainly negative, but this changes with the field that a person is in.  For example, if I become a history major and many people know of my work and I know of theirs I am not going to completely discredit someone's work because they are my college.  A "Praise Sandwich" tells the audience the good things about the book, while at the same time stating some of the not-so-great things.  This way, the author of said book is not highly offended because they received overall positive feedback.  I think I will have a difficult time writing my book review of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, but I look forward to the challenge!