1 OF 3

Aurora Malherbe
Professor Hamman
August 2, y

1st Part
State rights
Greenberg pages 67-70 summary
The Supreme Court basically has forbid the growth of power on the federal government
to regulate business, but also has limited the States to have more power. For example:
Federal government was not allowed to limit manufacturing in monopolies and in the
National Recovery and the Agricultural Adjustment Acts it nullified the regulation of child
labor. As it was defined in 1964 by the court, which appointed the Congress to
commerce clause powers for improving economic activities even if they were not directly
affecting the work related with foreign countries. Another example parts from the Civil
Right Act stablished in 1964, which righteously prohibited discrimination publicly and at
lunch worktables. Consequently, working towards a supreme economical end result to
prevent affecting interstate commerce.
More Court decisions are In result of the Devolution practiced by many presidents such
as George H. W. Bush to Bill Clington. The Devolution resulted in a different welfare by
transferring the responsibility to the States, cuts in federal government employment. At
the time, the idea of trusting the States was matter of being more responsive to the
people and it seamed convincing.
Another example at that time was the possibility of regulating gun purchasing due to the
tragedy lived in Sandy (CT) massive shooting. In 1995, the Court reversed the federal

2 OF 3

legislation removing guns near schools, demanding background checks when buying a
gun. In 2000, the Court negated part of the Violence against Women Act and in 2001
the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lately, the Court has supported federal laws more
than of the States specially in the use of Mariguana, all the way to the juvenile death
penalty and gay rights, limiting the States to have the power to regulate over such
subjects.

2nd Part
Immigration Issues
Immigration laws are constant undetermined issue between the powers of federal and
state, one clear example is the recent issue before the justice in the Arizona immigration
law called attrition through enforcement, which basically left a clear message to
immigrants about packing up and leaving the Country by being pull over to be identified.
This is a clear dispute between the state officials against the Obama administration,
which are trying to find a balance between states and the national government. Obama
administration had a lawsuit to negate the Arizonas immigration enforcement law and
apparently Americans were in favor of the states provision. Are Arizona and other states
allowed to practice designated provisions in federal immigration statutes and support
them, even when the government administration made decisions to not mandate those
provisions.

3 OF 3

Basically each state should set its own immigration policy but as far as Arizona state
goes, the state law requires noncitizen and nonpermanent residents to carry an
immigrant registration document such as a green card. Some say this could result in
illegal racial profiling. Consequently in 2010, A federal judge issue a warning or better
said an injunction to block the law. In all, this has cause a division between republican
and democratic in how best resolve the immigration issues. Currently this law continues
to be blocked by federal judges.

Citation
Richey, Warren. "Arizona Immigration Law: States Vs. Obama at US Supreme
Court, again." The Christian Science MonitorApr 23 2012. ProQuest. Web. 1 July 2016 .