¶ … federalism in the U.S. Federalism in the United States through Supreme Court decisions

Printz v. United States and Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority

One of the most obvious environments in which the issue of federalism and anti-federalism sentiment is seen is in the judicial system. There have been numerous cases and instances in which the ruling of the Supreme Court was seen as encouraging either federalism or anti-federalism. Two such cases are Printz v. United States (1997) and Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) in which the decisions of the Court ruled in such a manner as to create precedent for the overruling power of federal representation against state authority, thus ruling under a federalist sentiment.

Printz v. United States set in question the ability of the federal government to decide the attributes of the state police concerning gun control. The background of the case includes the applicability of several gun-control legislation, among which the most important, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which took effect in 1998. The major issue concerning this topic concerns the ownership of guns by particular categories of individuals that are considered by the legislation as being un-suited for carrying a firearm. These categories include among others, former convicts, convicted individuals for criminal acts or misdemeanor acts of domestic violence and abuse, fugitives, individuals that have been involuntarily institutionalized due to mental illnesses. These categories are seen to be dangerous if a firearm is in their possession. The legislation passed to ensure that controls are being conducted every time an individual acquires or transfers a firearm was intended to be applied at a federal level meaning that the Congress would be the one imposing the procedures for the controls and checks and would...

In which it was argued that the Congress should not force states and its representatives (in this case, Chief Law Enforcement Officer) to apply federal law. The role of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in this particular case and under the interim provisions of the Brady Act was to conduct research in state archives and electronic files in cases in which transfer of firearms would take place, to ensure that the transferee would not be part of the categories that are not allowed to have firearms. This assignment would have a temporary nature, until the full federal checking system would have been operational (Cornell, 2014). The initial outcome of the District Court considered this assignment to be unconstitutional whereas the Circuit Court viewed it as constitutional also basing on the fact that this assignment was temporary and eventually the voluntary checking system would remain in place.
The discussion on this case focuses on the ability of the Congress to impose state officers to enforce federal law. The Tenth Amendment allows the Congress to rule on matters related to international issues and interstate matters that are outside the rule of authority of the states. It is clearly stated in the Constitution that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (Archives.gov, 2014). Therefore, the issue of federalism is spelled out rather straightforward yet its interpretation can be various. The Supreme Court through its jurisprudence has established case logs that are referenced to determine whether certain powers were given to the Congress or the States. In the current case, the representative of Printz argued that in fact the Congress was not given the authority to…