Here's the first of a handful of stories I'll post which related to the interaction between states and the national government, specifically areas where the national government has established standards that are then imposed on the states - or might possible impose on them if they in fact become policy.
From The Hill: Obama’s death penalty review risks backlash from the states.
The generations-old debate over capital punishment has shifted to Washington, where President Obama’s Justice Department has launched a national review of the death penalty.
Attorney Gen. Eric Holder’s inquiry, initiated last month following a mishandled execution in Oklahoma, is still in its early stages. The effort includes a look at state death penalty protocols, though its scope and ultimate implications are not yet clear.
But by ordering up the review, Obama is raising questions about what role, if any, the federal government should have on an issue that is traditionally the province of the states.
A few things to note in the story. It discusses national intervention in criminal justice policy, which traditionally is a reserved power of the states. It mentions that the reason this is done is because of racial bias in how the death penalty is carried out. The 14th Amendment allows the national government to prevent the states from treating people unequally before the law, but it is not specific about this requirement. Supreme Court cases often focus on determining whether national intervention is in fact justified, but this is after the fact. So this is a great contemporary example of the state of federalism in the United States.
The story mentions that if these recommendations are adopted, they will most likely be done by withholding national funds for state projects. You'll notice that this is referred to in the notes as fiscal federalism in some places. The national government enticing states to comply with certain measures monetarily.
It also points out the push back from some members of Congress on the proposals by the Justice Department. The story does not mention this, but the department's positions is most likely that existing law, in addition to the 14th Amendment, provide the constitutional basis for them to go forward with the recommendations. Congress has little ability to prevent them from doing this now, thought the states opposed to these measures could potentially challenge these in the courts, arguing the Justice Department over stepped its bounds. Consider this an example of checks and balances.
We are reminded us that the Supreme Court recently limited Florida's ability to execute people with low IQ's by overturning how they interpret the results of the test.
It also mentions a couple interest groups that have been involved in raising awareness of issues associated with the death penalty.
One is the Constitution Project, which helped develop the recommendations. This shows us how interest groups can influence public policy. You'll note that it is composed of former attorneys general and judges, which makes it an specially powerful group.
The other is Amnesty International, specifically its Death Penalty Abolition Program.
The groups points out that support for the death penalty in general has been in decline and - possibly as a result - the use of the death penalty in the United States is declining. If so, that strengthens the argument that shifts in public opinion have an impact on public policy, which is a staple of democracy.
I hope clarifies some of the class' content so far.
Note the blog tags below - they'll take you to past stories on each of the topics listed above.
