American Politics Today - Essentials (3rd Ed)

THE EVOLVING CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM| 65

vision of federalism, which is known as dual federalism (see Table 3.1). Under
dual federalism the national and state governments were viewed as distinct,
with little overlap in their activities or the services they provided. In this view the
national government’s activities are confi ned to powers strictly enumerated in
the Constitution, despite the necessary and proper clause and the implied powers
endorsed in McCulloch v. Maryland. Within this framework of distinct national
and state powers, the Taney Court expanded the power of the states over com-
merce in ways that would not be accepted today. For example, this Court gave the
mayor of New York City the right to control immigration by requiring shipmasters
to post bonds for foreign passengers who might later go on welfare,^10 and it allowed
the city of Philadelphia to require ships to use local captains when entering the
harbor.^11 Today these areas of commerce are regulated by Congress, not by local
governments.

DRED SCOTT AND CIVIL WAR

The state-centered views of the Taney Court also produced a tragic decision,

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Dred Scott was a slave who had lived for many

years with his owner in the free Wisconsin Territory but was living in Missouri,

a slave state, when his master died. Scott petitioned for his freedom under the

Missouri Compromise, which said that slavery was illegal in any free state. The

Taney Court’s decision held that slaves were not citizens but private property,

and that therefore the Missouri Compromise violated the Fifth Amendment

because it deprived people (slave owners) of property without the due process of

law. This unfortunate decision contributed to the Civil War, which started four

dual federalism The form of

federalism favored by Chief Justice

Roger Taney in which national and

state governments are seen as

distinct entities providing separate

services. This model limits the

power of the national government.

EARLY LANDMARK SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON FEDERALISM

TABLE »^ 5.1

CASE HOLDING AND SIGNIFICANCE

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) Held that citizens of one state could sue another state; led to the

Eleventh Amendment, which prohibited such lawsuits.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Upheld the national government’s right to create a bank and reaffi rmed

the idea of “national supremacy.”

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Held that Congress, rather than the states, has broad power to regulate

interstate commerce.

Barron v. Baltimore (1833) Endorsed a notion of “dual federalism” in which the rights of a U.S.

citizen under the Bill of Rights did not apply to that same person under

state law.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Sided with southern states’ view that slaves were property and ruled

that the Missouri Compromise violated the Fifth Amendment, since

making slavery illegal in some states deprived slave owners of property.

Contributed to the start of the Civil War.

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones &

Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937)

Upheld the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 as consistent with

Congress’s commerce clause powers, reversing the Court’s more

narrow interpretation of that clause.

TABLE »^ 3.1