Lecture 8 The Legislature Part 4: Legislative Powers: Amendment Enforcement and Inherent Powers

This lecture We are going to cover pages 171-180 Lead case is South Carolina v. Katzenbach Covering Authority to enforce amendments Inherent Powers Constitutional Interpretation

Amendment Enforcing Powers Seven constitutional amendments have the following language Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article One was the 15th Amendment which prohibited the denial of the vote based on race It was meant to constraint states trying to from doing this 1957 Civil Rights Act However, when one law was struck down, another would pop up What about preventing future violations?

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 Look at Table 3-5 Nonwhites had considerably lower registration rates than whites But by 2000, these numbers had largely equalized A key provision was Section 5 This required any covered jurisdiction to preclear any changes to voting or election procedures either by the Justice Department or a three judge D.C. district court panel It assumed that any law was illegal until found otherwise Covered jurisdictions were set forward in Section 4(b) Section 2 applies everywhere

South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) Since South Carolina had registration levels of below 50%, it was covered It is also covered by name as well South Carolina did not want to submit to coverage Most northern states sided with the federal government Question Did this provision of the Voting Rights Act violate the state’s rights to conduct elections?

South Carolina v. Katzenbach- II Arguments For South Carolina It indeterminately sweeps across the rights of South Carolina and its citizen It covers some places with discrimination, but fails to cover others Equality of states It should not create a presumption of violations of the 15th Amendment For the Justice Department The 15th Amendment gives Congress authority to enforce the right to vote based on race The means by which is does so is its choice The grant of power is delegated in the 15th Amendment The coverage area was not decided arbitrarily

South Carolina v. Katzenbach- II Chief Justice Warren writes for an 8-1 Court The Court rules in favor of the Justice Department Congress created a long legislative record to justify this act and many hearings The South had long been in violation Past remedies had been unsuccessful Congress may use any rational means to effectuate enforcement of the 15th Amendment The 15th Amendment was made to supersede state authority in this area By the enforcing language, it was meant for Congress to be the primary enforcer Past uses have been upheld The ends are appropriate- the means are as well Limitations are only those found in the Constitution

South Carolina v. Katzenbach- II Black, J. dissenting Black was from Alabama He finds against Sections 5 and 4 Determining in advance what states can or cannot do Gives federal officials a veto over state laws In conflict with the Guarantee Clause Gives the federal government too much power over the states The Voting Rights Act was a success See Table 3-5 It greatly expanded the amendment enforcing ability of Congress

Does the Amendment Enforcing Power have any limits? The answer is yes City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) This was the case where Congress tried to change how the Court interpreted the First Amendment They argued that the 14th Amendment enforcement provision gave them that ability The Court says the enforcement power cannot be used to change interpretations of the First Amendment Congruent and proportional, between the injury to be prevented and the means adopted to the end The legislative record in RFRA was weak as to religious discrimination it sought to end

Shelby County v. Holder (2013) VRA was reauthorized several times, including for 25 years in 2006 Shelby County, Alabama said the coverage formula was based on 1965 racial discrimination data and was outdated They agreed and struck down Section 4 coverage It was outdated Some areas had black registration numbers above that of whites Other offenders not covered However, the newly freed areas from coverage immediately began passing and implementing laws that were discriminatory Ginsburg noted the record was replete with instances of the covered areas engaging in intentional discrimination which preclearance stopped

Inherent Powers Hamilton called these “resulting powers” Jurisdiction over a conquered territory Watkins- Investigatory powers United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936) Congress gave the President authority to prohibit arms sales to warring countries Panama Refining Company v. Ryan (1935) had struck down a law which delegated power to the President without sufficient guidelines But was a domestic, not international case That is why the Court ruled for the government The federal government enjoys complete authority over foreign relations The States never had any of this authority to begin with

Next time We will start on Chapter 4 on the Executive Pages 183-268 You should have material up to the end of Chapter 4 finished by the end of the second week of class.