American Constitution Society

Skip to content



Separation of Powers and Federalism

Recent years have witnessed an increase in executive power at the expense of the other branches of the federal government. This change has had a profound effect on our civil liberties, government transparency and the rule of law. The Separation of Powers and Federalism Group addresses the proper balance of power in our system of checks and balances, as well as other issues related to the power of the President. It also addresses the importance of preserving the independence of the judiciary. In addition, this Group focuses on the federalism jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, which has led it to strike down an unprecedented number of congressional enactments, threatening the ability of Congress to protect civil rights, the environment and workers. Finally, the Group also examines positive visions of federalism that will promote the ability of government at all levels to pursue progressive policies.

The Issue Group's Chairs is:


To get involved in the work of the Separation of Powers and Federalism Issue Group, please fill out the Issue Group Sign-Up Form.

Also, please note that ACS ResearchLink features a number of topics related to the Separation of Powers and Federalism Issue Group’s work on which law students are encouraged to focus their academic scholarship.
Recent Stories

Miranda's Future

Miranda's Future

On On Tuesday, July 13, 2010 ACS will host a panel discussion on the future of Miranda rights. As many have observed, changes to Miranda procedures are being discussed in the national security context. What are the arguments for and against such changes? Is there a demonstrated need for additional legal flexibility in the first few days after capturing an individual suspected of terrorism, or has experience shown that changes are unnecessary? Is there a danger that such proposed policy changes in the national security context will have corrosive effects in the domestic criminal justice arena? Are such proposed modifications part of a larger reconsideration of Miranda rights, also illustrated by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins, which now requires a suspect to affirmatively state his/her desire to remain silent? National security and criminal law experts from a variety of different perspectives will discuss these and other questions.

The panel will take place from 12:30 - 2 pm and feature:

Citizens United v. FEC: The Decision, Its Implications, and the Road Ahead

Citizens United v. FEC: The Decision, Its Implications, and the Road Ahead

ACS Issue Brief: Mandatory Health Insurance - Is It Constitutional?


Simon Lazarus

Tue, 12/22/2009

On the Eve of Historic Healthcare Vote, ACS Distributes Timely Issue Brief

 

In “Mandatory Health Insurance: Is It Constitutional?,” Simon Lazarus, Public Policy Counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center, addresses arguments regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate that constitutes a core part of the healthcare legislation under consideration. Mr. Lazarus argues that the mandate is clearly lawful and in accord with the Constitution.

 

In this Issue Brief, Mr. Lazarus argues that multiple provisions of the Constitution permit Congress to enact an individual mandate as part of healthcare reform legislation. He claims that “the Supreme Court decades ago, in 1944, held that the business of insurance fell within Congress’ regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause,” and that modern cases which limit the reach of the Commerce Clause authority do not undercut the authority of Congress to legislate in this area. Mr. Lazarus also argues that the individual mandate is authorized by the Congressional authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. Mr. Lazarus concludes that no provision of the bill of rights, or text found elsewhere in the Constitution, acts to prohibit Congress from enacting healthcare reform legislation.

AttachmentSize
Lazarus Issue Brief Final.pdf290.76 KB
More Stories


Close