|
|
Enforcing Constitutional
limits on federal power Federalism is often described as a "states' rights" movement. But for CIR, federalism is not about whether federal or state governments will regulate the lives of citizens, nor is it about the advocation of any particular ideology: it is simply about preserving the integrity of the Constitution. For decades, the federal government's legislation and activities have routinely exceeded the powers given to it by the Constitution. There is simply no support in either the letter or spirit of the Constitution for national laws regulating vast parts of citizens' lives. CIR intends to fight these violations of the Constitution and return the federal government to its lawful role.
U.S. v. Morrison restrains Congressional power
U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down federal law is widely seen as the greatest victory for federalism in decades
CIR struck a blow for federalism when we won a case before the Supreme Court that struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act. The law provided a federal remedy for gender-based violence on the grounds that such violence was a threat to interstate commerce. The case began at the Polytechnical University of Virginia (Virginia Tech), where in 1994 Christy Brzonkala was allegedly raped by Antonio Morrison and James Crawford. Brzonkala first filed charges in the university's tribunal and lost twice on the grounds that she lacked evidence. On the advice of her lawyers, Brzonkala took her case further. On December 27, 1995, she filed suit against Morrison, Crawford and Virginia Tech, citing the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA). According to her legal team, she chose to take the case federal and bypass the civil remedies in the state courts to test and publicize the VAWA. But a District Court dismissed her claims and the Fourth Circuit later concurred. For the courts, this was law was an abuse of power that could "not be reconciled with the principles of limited federal government upon which this nation is founded." When the Supreme Court took the case in 2000, CIR defended Morrison, Crawford and the University on the grounds that the VAWA exceeded the authority of Congress. CIR won the case 5-4. The Court's decision struck down the offending section of the VAWA, and imposed real restrictions on Congress for the first time decades.
|
|
