Search

Critics of Virginia's challenge to the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have asserted that Virginia lacked standing to even raise the issue. Such criticism is inconsistent with foundational understandings of the role of states in providing a check on federal power and with the modern standing jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, especially as reflected in the Court's decisions regarding a state's sovereign interest in defending its code of laws. This Article demonstrates that, as a matter of constitutional design and history, as well as under relevant precedents, Virginia clearly had and has standing to bring its challenge., INTRODUCTION I. VIRGINIA V. SEBELIUS: VIRGINIA'S CLAIM OF SOVEREIGN INJURY II. REFEREEING DISPUTES BETWEEN CO-SOVEREIGNS: THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS III. STATE SOVEREIGN STANDING: MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON AND [...]

The article highlights how consequential for the consolidation of the administrative state were announced in the U.S. Supreme Court's case "Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc." It reports that despite the constitutional provisions, the justices have a long history of overturning the decisions of political officials even where constitutional text and history do not clearly suggest such a result.

The article discusses how the U.S. Constitution's Third Amendment's protections incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution. Topics discussed include laws governing practice of quartering soldiers in private homes in the country; the U.S. Court case "Engblom v. Carey" concerning the application of the Third Amendment; and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case "MacDonald v. City of Chicago."

The article discusses issues related to the adoption of Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S constitution in 37 U.S. states. The adoption demonstrated that governmental endorsement test in Establishment Clause jurisprudence is contrary to American history and tradition. It mentions that when the Fourteenth Amendment took effect in state constitutions, nonestablishment principles and values included no concern about governmental endorsement.

The article focuses on the constitutionality of the U.S. federal health care law. It discusses the reasonableness principle of the natural law which is deemed to be implicit in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourth Amendments and highlights the criticism on the jurisprudential regime on the economic liberty founded upon such the reasonableness principle. It explores the implication of activity and inactivity divide on the liberty of interests protected by federalism.