Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Federal Nation pp 223–239Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Abortion, the Judiciary and Federalism in North America

  • Chapter

  • 202 Accesses

Part of the book series: Studies of the Americas ((STAM))

Abstract

Federalism is a protean feature of political life, both in theory and in practice. Its shape-shifting character means not only that federalism varies from country to country and from era to era, but also that it assumes different forms within the same country and era depending on the issue at stake. In the past quarter century, U.S. scholars have identified a movement from “cooperative federalism” to “coercive federalism,” though others identify the trend as being toward “opportunistic federalism.”1 Yet federal aggrandizement is usually selective, and in some policy areas the federal government has made little or no attempt to increase its powers at the expense of the states.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. See, for example, RobertAlbritton, “American Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations,” in Gillian Peele, Christopher Bailey, Bruce Cain, and Guy Peters, eds., Developments in American Politics 5 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 124–145; Tim Conlan, “From Cooperative to Opportunistic Federalism,” Public Administration Review 66 (2006): 663–676; John Kincaid, “From Cooperative to Coercive Federalism,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 59 (1990): 139–152; Paul Posner, “The Politics of Preemption: Prospects for the States,” PS: Political Science and Politics (2005): 371–374.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bruce Ryder, “The Demise and Rise of the Classical Paradigm in Canadian Federalism: Promoting Autonomy for the Provinces and First Nations,” McGill Law Journal (1991): 309

    Google Scholar 

  3. John Kincaid, “Devolution in the United States: Rhetoric and Reality,” in K. Nicolaidis and R. Howse, eds., The Federal Vision (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 151.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 410 US 113 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 410 US 113, 153.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 410 US 113, 222.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 410 US 113, 153–154.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 505 US 833 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 462 US 416 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Planned Parenthood v. Danforth 428 US 52 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 167 L Ed 2d 480 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 US 914 (220).

    Google Scholar 

  13. (1988) 1 S.C.R. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Morgentaler v. The Queen (1976) 1 S.C.R. 616.

    Google Scholar 

  15. The opinions and voting in the case was complex, but Chief Justice Dixon and Justices Lamer, Beetz, Estey, and Wilson found reasons for nullifying the law, while Justices McIntyre and La Forest found reasons to uphold it. See Christopher Manfredi, Judicial Power and the Charter: Canada and the Paradox of Liberal Constitutionalism, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 80–81.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 1 S.C.R. 30, 46.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 1 S.C.R. 30, 56–57.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 1 S.C.R. 30, 54.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lorraine Eisenstat Weinrib, “The Activist Constitution,” in P. Howe and P. H. Russell, eds., Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy (Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press, 2001), 81.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Weinrib, 82.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Raymond Tatalovich, The Politics of Abortion in the United States and Canada (New York: M.E Sharpe, 1996), 198.

    Google Scholar 

  22. www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006, accessed January 17, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  23. (1989) 2 S.C.R. 530

    Google Scholar 

  24. Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Laura Eggerston, “Abortion Services in Canada: A Patchwork Quilt with Many Holes,” Canadian Medical Association Journal (March 20, 2001): 847.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Howard A. Palley, “Canadian Abortion Policy: National Policy and the Impact of Federalism and Political Implementation on Access to Services,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism (2006): 569.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Palley, 573.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Eggerston, 847.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Palley, 568.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Palley, 568.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jacob Levy, “Federalism, Liberalism and the Separation of Loyalties,” American Political Science Review 101 (2007): 460.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Michael Greve, “Same-Sex Marriage: Commit It to the States,” Federalist Outlook 20 (March 2004): 2.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ryder, 318–319.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sandra Day O’Connor, “Altered States: Federalism and Devolution at the ‘Real’ Turn of the Millenium,” Cambridge Law Journal 60 (2001): 508–510.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Louis D. Brandeis, New State Ice Co. v. Lieberman, 285 US 262 (1932), 311.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Levy, 459.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Samuel Beer, To Make a Nation: The rediscovery of American Federalism (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1993), 386.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See, for example, Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 US 753 (1994) upholding the creation of buffer zones around abortion clinics in the face of a First Amendment challenge by antiabortion activists; and NOW v. Scheidler, 510 US 249 (1994) allowing the use of the RICO antiracketeering legislation against antiabortion conspiracies to shut down clinics. However, see also Scheidler v. NOW 537 US 393 (2006), barring the use of the Hobbs Act extortion legislation against such efforts.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Levy, 459.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Herbert Wechsler, “The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government,” Columbia Law Review (1954): 544.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wechsler, 546.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wechsler, 560.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See for example, Jesse Choper, Judicial Review and the National Political Process: A Functional Reconsideration of the Role of the Supreme Court (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); and Larry Kramer, “Putting The Politics Back Into The Political Safeguards Of Federalism,” Columbia Law Review (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  44. A partial exception was Kramer (ibid., 240) who advocated that judicial review is only warranted once constitutional principles have been settled through the political processes.

    Google Scholar 

  45. See, for example, Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo, “The Puzzling Persistence of Process-Based Federalism Theories,” Texas Law Review 79 (2001): 1459–1523.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Prakash and Yoo, 1476–1477.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Louis Fisher, Constitutional Dialogues: Interpretation as Political Process (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Walter F. Murphy, Elements of Judicial Strategy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 413 US 15 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Christine Bateup, “Expanding the Constitution: American and Canadian Experiences of Constitutional Dialogue in Comparative Perspective,” New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers 44 (2006), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Levy, 326–327.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Levy, 327.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Levy, 325.

    Google Scholar 

  54. See, for example, Bateup, 1–66.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Robert McKeever
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Study of the Americas, University of London, UK

    Iwan W. Morgan (Professor of U.S. Studies) (Professor of U.S. Studies)

  2. British Library, Montfort University, UK

    Philip J. Davies (Director of the Eccles Centre for American Studies, Professor of U.S. Studies) (Director of the Eccles Centre for American Studies, Professor of U.S. Studies)

Copyright information

© 2008 Iwan W. Morgan and Philip J. Davies

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McKeever, R. (2008). Abortion, the Judiciary and Federalism in North America. In: Morgan, I.W., Davies, P.J. (eds) The Federal Nation. Studies of the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230617254_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation