Quote Quoting kist
View Post
I'm still processing this:

"This was a direct statement that the Congress wished the feds to have a limited role in government and leave most of the "general welfare" to the states, as under the doctrine of the "New Federalism".
Here is an overview of such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Federalism

I first read the term "New Federalism" in an Ohio Supreme Court ruling.

Robinette was decided and remanded back to the Ohio SC. The crux of it was they decided the Federal constitution mandates an officer tell a motorist s/he is "free to go" before doing such. The US SC ruled, it does not mandate it and remanded.

...A state may impose greater restrictions on police activity pursuant to its own state constitution than is required by federal constitutional standards. California v. Greenwood (1988), 486 U.S. 35, 43, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 1630, 100 L.Ed.2d 30, 39; Oregon v. Hass (1975), 420 U.S. 714, 719, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 1219, 43 L.Ed.2d 570, 575. This movement toward enforcing state constitutions independently has been called the “New Federalism.”...



State v. Robinette (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 234.


It basically is a movement by states to seperate themselves from the "awesome" power of big brother.

Take the New London eminent domain case a few years back. States took a great dislike to this power under the federal takings clause and apply thier takings clause when such comes into question.