It may be that, when the Supreme Court rules on state power to monitor and restrict the activities of people who have entered the U.S. illegally and remain without permission, the Justices will give states additional authority.
It will take five votes on the Supreme Court for Arizona to get permission to start enforcing key parts of its tough new immigration control law–S.B. 1070–and those votes appeared to be within reach on Wednesday.
In the final round of hearings in a Supreme Court term that has seemed closely linked to the 2012 election campaign, the Supreme Court turns its attention this week to the emotional subject of immigration controls.
The want of a central authority over commercial affairs was one of the major weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and a central animating purpose behind the Constitutional Convention that convened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.
Where, one may ask, will a Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act stand in history?
Few exercises in interpreting the Constitution are as bizarre as the one that the Supreme Court and lower courts go through if they strike down only a part of a multi-faceted law, and then decide what of the remainder can survive.
For both lawyers, most of the questions coming from the bench probably will be about Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause, though some will explore the Necessary and Proper Clause, and at least a few questions may focus on the mandate as a form of tax.
It has been 17 years since the Supreme Court ruled that the states have no authority under state law to impose term limits on those who seek seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.