Total run time:
1h 10m
This module in the Structural Constitution course highlights key debates about federalism: at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, throughout our history with the expansion of the scope of the Federal government through the Commerce Clause and the weakening of the state governments in the Civil War and later Amendments, and the state it is today.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those that are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
-Madison, Federalist No. 45
Questions to be explored included:
What did Federalism look like at the time of the Founding? How did the state governments and the Articles of Confederation shape the writing of the Constitution? In what ways was the text of the Constitution a compromise among representatives from different states?
What is the history of the Commerce Clause? (and other clauses such as the Necessary and Proper clause that have been used to justify the expansion of the power of the federal government) With the size and scope of the federal government today, do the states in any way exercise a meaningful check on its power?
What is “new federalism” and how is it different from the federalism in the early Republic leading to the Civil War? Why does Federalism matter today?
We explore answers to these questions below.
What was the primary issue in NFIB versus Sebelius ?
Professor Randy Barnett explains that this was not a Commerce Clause case because the Supreme Court had already decided that Congress could regulate insurance. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the question wa
...
What was the primary issue in NFIB versus Sebelius ?
Professor Randy Barnett explains that this was not a Commerce Clause case because the Supreme Court had already decided that Congress could regulate insurance. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the question was whether the federal government could force citizens to transact with private insurance companies. Five justices concluded that this was an improper use of authority, but Chief Justice Roberts decided that the mandate could be changed into a non-mandatory, non-coercive tax.
Professor Randy E. Barnett is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts, and is Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Subscribe to the series’ playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWwcngsYgoUVuiVj2TkrPolK5t6jD4PKa
Total run time:
1h 10m
Course:
Total videos:
22
Difficulty:
First Year
Thank you for enrolling in the course! You’ll receive email updates every week with our newest video.