Author's Keywords: death penalty federalism states' rights Supreme Court Scalia Thomas Rehnquist	Convention All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: The Midwest Political Science Association URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~mpsa/
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p83496_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Miller, Kenneth. and Niven, David. "Federalism by Convenience: The Supreme Court's Judicial Federalists on the Death Penalty and States' Rights Controversies" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, Apr 15, 2004 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p83496_index.html>

Miller, K. and Niven, D. , 2004-04-15 "Federalism by Convenience: The Supreme Court's Judicial Federalists on the Death Penalty and States' Rights Controversies" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-26 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p83496_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: Fundamental to the premise of judicial review is the need for consistency. If the courts are to overturn the decisions of elected officials, the basis of such rulings must be consistently applied across issues and circumstances without regard to the political value of selective application. States' rights represent one area where the Rehnquist Court is thought to have dramatically etched its mark on constitutional interpretation by consistently reading constitutional limits on the federal government as implying wide freedoms for the states. A number of scholars have argued that by repeatedly defining the powers of the federal government in a limited way, and broadly characterizing the states' discretion, the Supreme Court has fundamentally altered the power relationship in government. Consistent with its value of states' rights, the Court's conservative leadership has sought to quell Court scrutiny of state death penalty laws and practices, reasoning that the states should be left to exercise their own judgment, and that the federal government and the Court itself need not have a role. Consistency on states' rights, while extending to many issues beyond the Death Penalty is noticeably absent in controversies in which deferring to the states would amount to deferring to a liberal agenda. In cases ranging from how states run their own elections to how they regulate business members of the Court's conservative majority found against a state or local government. Instead of embracing their well established states' rights precedents, the Court found in favor of a strong role for the federal government in these cases, arguing that the Court must interfere with the states because they lack competence, or that the practical effects of 50 states coming to 50 different answers was too unwieldy. We explore the implications of the Court's selective embrace of States' Rights, and discuss the possibility that political convenience, not philosophy, guides the Court as it protects the states' Death Penalty statutes while attacking their regulation of business.

Election Litigation in the Federal System: State Courts and Vote Choice in the Federal Judicial Hierarchy

Divided Governments and the Institutional Legitimacy of National Highest Courts: A Case Study of Korean Constitutional Court

Reputation & Anticipation: The German Bundestag, the Federal Constitutional Court, and the European Court of Justice