Citation

Schwartz H. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 2001; 574(1): 119-131.

Affiliation

Washington College of Law, American University

Copyright

(Copyright © 2001, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/000271620157400109

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Throughout American history, states' rights have been used as a cover to hide less respectable interests such as race, class, religion, power, and money. Because reforms in racial justice and social equality have come primarily from the federal government as a result of the Civil War and the New Deal, states' rights have usually been used to promote conservative interests. Today's conservative Supreme Court majority, led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, has imposed limitations on federal power to curtail the rights of women, religious groups, the elderly, racial minorities, and other disadvantaged groups. Asserting a wide range of benefits from strong state sovereignty, few of which do in fact exist, the conservatives have shrunk the scope of the commerce clause, developed implied limitations on federal authority, and narrowly construed the Civil War amendments. Yet, despite their federalist rhetoric, the conservative justices have not hesitated to strike down state and local legislation and other action enhancing individual rights—and this notwithstanding their frequent criticism of judicial activism in other areas.