Forwarded message:

While I have not found this case decision posted anywhere but in this usenet posting, I have found some background info: http://www.rcfp.org/NMU/961216b.html

Local Sovereignty Update US Court Again Upholds State Sovereignty and Strikes Down Federal = Mandate This month we have another case in which the federal courts have = recognized that the federal government has no authority to impose any = mandate on state or local government. Printz v. US ruled that '[t]he Federal Government may neither issue = directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor = command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, = to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.' That across = the board prohibition is simply being applied to various federal = mandates one after the other.=20 =20 CONDON v US, Decided: September 3, 1998 =20

=20 In 1994 Congress passed the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), = which tried to set federal standards governing how and when information = in driving records could be released. The DPPA said that "Any State = department of motor vehicles that has a policy or practice of = substantial noncom- pliance . . . shall be subject to a civil penalty = imposed by the Attorney General of not more than $5,000 a day."=20 =20 South Carolina, joined by several other states, refused to implement the = Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), and sued the Federal government = in US Court demanding that the law be recognized by the federal courts = as a violation of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the United States = Constitution. =20 The Fourth Circuit Court struck down DPPA ruling that

"Under our system of dual sovereignty, "[t]he powers not delegated to = the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the = States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U.S. = Const. amend. X. Because Congress lacked the authority to enact the DPPA = under either the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth = Amendment, we affirm the judgment of the district court."

The Court also stated plainly that: "Congress may not enact any law that = would direct the functioning of the States' executives or legislatures." =

Citing the New York and Printz cases the court said that the Supreme = Court's ruling with respect to federal mandates "has been a model of = consistency."=20

Some of the more important quotes from the case follow:

In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) the Supreme Court = held that Congress could not "commandeer[ ] the legislative processes of = the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal = regulatory program." ... In Printz v. US the court held "that Congress = cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers = directly." Id. at 2384. The Court went on to note that '[t]he Federal = Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address = particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their = political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory = program.' " =20

"The Supreme Court, in both New York and Printz, has made it perfectly = clear that the Federal Government may not require State officials to = administer a federal regulatory program."

"Although Congress has regulated the disclosure of personal information = by some private parties, the Constitution permits Congress to regulate = the conduct of individuals. In contrast, Congress may not, as a general = matter, regulate the conduct of the States. See New York, 505 U.S. at = 166 ("[T]he Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon = Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States." (quoted with = approval in Printz, 117 S. Ct. at 2377)). "

"The United States also contends that the DPPA was properly enacted = pursuant to Congress's power under Section 5 of the Four- teenth = Amendment. In light of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in City of = Boerne v. Flores, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997), we are constrained to = disagree."

Congress's power to enact legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment is = not unlimited, however. See, e.g. , City of Boerne v. Flores, 117 S. Ct. = 2157, 2171 (1997) (holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is = "a considerable congressional intrusion into the States' traditional = prerogatives," and that Congress exceeded its power under the Fourteenth = Amendment in enacting the statute); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, = 469 (1991) (stating that "the Four- teenth Amendment does not override = all principles of federalism"); Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 128 = (1970) (noting that "[a]s broad as the congressional enforcement power = is, it is not unlimited"). For instance, Congress's power "extends only = to enforc[ing] the provi- sions of the Fourteenth Amendment." City of = Boerne, 117 S. Ct. at 2164 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks = omitted). Of perhaps equal importance, it is only a preventative or = remedial power, not a substantive power. See id. at 2167. As a result, = Congress does not possess "the power to determine what constitutes a = constitutional violation." Id. at 2164.=20

"neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has ever found a = constitutional right to privacy with respect to the type of information = found in motor vehicle records. Accordingly, Congress did not have the = authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact the = DPPA."

____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------