National League of Cities, Garcia and the Tenth Amendment: Some Notes and Questions

 In National League of Cities the Court upheld the principle of federalism as a check on national power.

The Court struck down maximum hour and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as applied to state employees performing traditional government functions.

The Court held that Congress attempt to impose the FLSA on state governments invaded the realm of state sovereignty as protected by the Tenth Amendment.  States have the prerogative to determine how much to pay state government employees and how to regulate them.

What do you think? Should Congress be empowered to impose minimum wage regulations on State agencies, such as Attorney General’s office or the Department of Motor Vehicles?

Then, Garcia came along and overruled National League of Cities and held that the Tenth Amendment does not shield state governments from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the  FLSA, because the FLSA is within the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.

 The Court held that the principle of federalism was protected by the political process not by substantive constitutional protection in the courts. See p. 240

What does this mean?

 Is this judicial abdication, a refusal to guard the limits on national power established by the Constitution? The Constitution says that the powers of Congress are enumerated and what is not enumerated is reserved to the states and the people in the states. Under Marbury, is it not the duty if the Court to guard this border between what is enumerated and what is reserved?

Why should we think that the internal operations of state government are within the scope of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce? 

What do you think about Garcia? Do you agree with Justice Powell’s dissent that Garcia “effectively reduces the Tenth Amendment to meaningless rhetoric when Congress acts pursuant to the Commerce Clause.” p. 241.

Is the FLSA upheld in Garcia ‘‘consist[ent] with the letter and spirit of the constitution,’’to quote McCulloch, and therefore not ‘‘proper [means] for carrying into Execution’’Congress’s enumerated powers.

 Is government employment interstate commerce? Does it substantially effect interstate commerce? 

 How do you understand the Tenth Amendment? Should it govern in a case like this?

 Is it merely rhetoric?

Should a future Court overrule Garcia? What about stare decisis? If a Court values stare decisis, should it be faithful to the earlier precedent (National League of Cities) or to the more recent precedent (Garcia) that itself refused to follow stare decisis? But, of course, National League of Cities also overruled Maryland v. Wirtz.

Perhaps this issue is so important as to resist stare decisis?  

The Garcia opinion says "Due respect for the reach of congressional power within the federal system mandates" the Court's decision. p. 241

What is the other side of that coin? 

Does Justice O'Connor have a possible solution (p.242): 

 The problems of federalism in an integrated national economy are capable of more responsible resolution than holding that the States as States retain no status apart from
that which Congress chooses to let them retain. The proper resolution, I suggest, lies in weighing state autonomy as a factor in the balance when interpreting the means by which Congress can exercise its authority on the States as States. It is insufficient, in assessing the validity of congressional regulation of a State pursuant to the commerce power, to ask only whether the same regulation would be valid if enforced against a private party. That reasoning, embodied in the majority opinion, is inconsistent with the spirit of our Constitution. . . .

 

Does Garcia reflect the national power of government workers unions?