From Lincoln to Calhoun to Lincoln to Calhoun—Federalism and the Supreme Court

In his talk “From the Party of Lincoln to the Party of Calhoun: The Supreme Court And Voting Rights In Historical Perspective” Scott Lemieux discusses how voting rights and civil rights have been influenced by differing arguments regarding federalism and the decisions of the Supreme Court. He explains that throughout American history, discussions of states vs. federal rights have consistently come up in the courts. These debates have in turn affected civil rights and voting legislation, and how the courts approach these policies. For example, Lemieux cites the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which attempted to correct and prevent possible loopholes imbedded within the vague language of the 15^th amendment (which only provides for protection against disenfranchisement involving race, but not all other forms of disenfranchisement—opening the door to poll taxes, grandfather clauses, etc.). The act provided the federal government the right to oversee any changes in voting legislation in states, as well as the right to oversee the electoral process in any state whose voting practices were questionable. In addition, Lemieux discusses the recent court case Shelby County v. Holder, which decreed those afore mentioned sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional, and repealed them. Lemieux explains that this “unconstitutionality” was not based on legitimate constitutional violations, but rather on the Supreme Court Justice’s personal ideas regarding federalism. Supreme Court Justice Roberts contends that those sections of the voting rights act of 1965 violate state sovereignty. These state-favoring federalist ideals, Lemieux explains, decree that rights of the states trump the rights of the individual citizens and are the ideals that our country fought a civil war to get rid of. These are the ideals of the party of John C. Calhoun, not the party of Abraham Lincoln.

He explains that it can be argued that the Supreme Court, due to lifetime tenure and separateness from partisan politics, has the ability to make decisions that favor minorities; while, other governmental representatives, who are concerned with reelection and partisan politics, may not have this luxury. However, Shelby County vs. Holder represents a divergence from this philosophy, because the Supreme Court goes against the general majority ideal in favor of minority rights.

            I found this notion (formally called the counter majoritarian difficulty) to be most compelling, because it illustrates the fluidity of Supreme Court throughout history. The judicial branch of the United States is an interesting portion of the American political system, as lifetime tenure and separateness from partisan and reelection issues gives the branch an unparalleled opportunity to defend the constitution without any outside influences. However, although Justices may be separate from reelection and partisan issues, the Supreme Court is primarily a slave to the constitution. Thus, Justices are not separate from differing ideologies regarding HOW the constitution must be interpreted. The constitution is constructed in a manner that lends itself to multiple interpretations; this is the basis of federalism. Some may believe that the constitution should be interpreted strictly: only the powers given to the federal government explicitly in the constitution are valid and all other unmentioned powers are deferred to the states. Others may contend that the constitution should be interpreted loosely, given that the constitution was constructed vaguely on purpose, to provide a fundamental Americanism which can exist and flow with changing times (Coleman). This dichotomy between ideologies of potential Supreme Court Justices makes the courts an ever-changing place.

            The fluidity of the courts to make decisions that potentially redefine and reconstruct previous Supreme Court decisions is an indication of the consistent role that federalism plays in American politics. Economic philosophies and social woes may change the outermost construct of American political parties. But there always has been, and always will be, an internal struggle between loose and strict interpretations of the constitution. It is very possible (I would contend probable) that a future Supreme Court justice will redefine the Shelby County v. Holder decision in a different light. It will be argued that the inability of the states to regulate voting fairly and effectively gives the Federal government the right to oversee and ensure the fairness of the process. And we will have returned to the “party of Lincoln.” I think a more proper title (but also more of a mouthful) for Lemieux’s talk would have been “from the Party of Lincoln, to the Party of Calhoun, to the Party of Lincoln, to the Party of Calhoun, to the Party of Lincoln, to the Party of Calhoun…” and so on. For, the influences of federalism will play a consistently changing role in the Supreme Court. The constitution may always be fundamentally the same, but how each justice interprets it, is always up for grabs.

Coleman, Aaron Nathaniel. "Madison and Jefferson’s Strict Construction Versus Hamilton’s Implied Powers: A Study of Constitutional Interpretation." University of Cumberlands. Accessed October 14, 2014.

Lemieux, Scott. "From The Party Of Lincoln To The Party Of Calhoun: The Supreme Court And Voting Rights In Historical Perspective." Lecture, Center for Ethics, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA.