Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T11:51:10.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - The Powers of Congress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2013

Richard H. Fallon, Jr
Richard H. Fallon, Jr
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.

– The Federalist No. 45

IN 1994, IN SEPTEMBER OF HER FRESHMAN YEAR AT Virginia Polytechnic Institute (better known as Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala reported that she had been raped by two members of the school's varsity football team, one of whom allegedly told her, “You'd better not have any diseases.” When Brzonkala pressed a complaint through the college's disciplinary system, officials dismissed the charges against one of her alleged assailants. They found the other student guilty and initially suspended him for two semesters, but the school's provost overturned that punishment as “excessive” in light of the penalties in similar cases.

Rape is, of course, a crime under Virginia law, and Brzonkala might have sought action by the state’s criminal justice system. In general, however, private citizens cannot force prosecutors to bring criminal charges. For a variety of reasons, prosecutors sometimes hesitate to file rape cases, perhaps especially against members of a public university’s popular football team. So Brzonkala filed a civil (rather than criminal) lawsuit of her own in which she sought not to have her alleged assailants sent to jail but to have them pay money damages directly to her. She did so under the Violence against Women Act, a federal statute Congress enacted in 1994.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Dynamic Constitution
An Introduction to American Constitutional Law and Practice
 , pp. 227 - 252
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Rakove, Jack N., Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (New York: Knopf, 1996), 177–80Google Scholar
Stern, Robert L., “That Commerce Which Concerns More States Than One,” 47 Harvard Law Review 1335, 1341 (1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, Donald H., “How to Think about the Federal Commerce Power and Incidentally Rewrite United States v. Lopez,” 94 Michigan Law Review 554, 556 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosskey, William Winslow, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 1:50–292Google Scholar
Barnett, Randy E., “The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause,” 68 University of Chicago Law Review101 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Grant S. and Pushaw, Robert J. Jr., “Rethinking the Commerce Clause: Applying First Principles to Uphold Federal Commercial Regulations but Preserve State Control over Social Issues,” 85 Iowa Law Review 1 (1999)Google Scholar
Shapiro, David L., Federalism: A Dialogue (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1995)Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A., “The Proper Scope of the Commerce Power,” 73 Virginia Law Review1387 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342 (1914)
Cushman, Barry, Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar
Kramer, Larry D., “We the Court,” 115 Harvard Law Review 4, 122 (2001)Google Scholar
United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 115 (1941)
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Black, Charles L. Jr., The People and the Court (New York: Macmillan, 1960), 59–63Google Scholar
Ackerman, Bruce, We The People: Foundations (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1991)Google Scholar
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65 (1936)
Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183 (1968)
Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000)
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
Scalia, Justice Antonin, author of “The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules,” 56 University of Chicago Law Review1175 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×