Question

Several years ago, Congress passed legislation permitting citizens to register to vote when they obtain or renew their driver's licenses (the Motor Voter Law). Congress thought that it could pass this legislation based on a power that could be implied from various enumerated powers (e.g., Article I, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed by the [state] legislatures; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.")
The State of Illinois disagrees. While conceding that the Motor Voter Law is constitutional as it pertains to federal elections, Illinois argues that it is unconstitutional as applied to state elections. In Illinois's view, the Motor Voter statute directly interferes with states' rights. So Illinois is allowing voters, who registered when they obtained their licenses, to vote for federal candidates but not for state candidates.
Suppose John Marshall were still chief justice. How would he react to this argument? How would a Marshall opinion in this case differ from one written by, say, Roger B. Taney? Please note that you are not being asked to write an essay determining whether or not this law is constitutional; rather, you should analyze the approaches that Marshall and Taney would take in their opinions.
Finally, if you were a justice on the Supreme Court, to which view of federalism would you subscribe: Marshall's, Taney's, or something in between?Explain why.

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 87 characters.