In analyzing the Supreme Court's powers in federal-state relations, the author demonstrates that the framers of the constitution clearly intended that the Court should be the federal umpire, thus disproving a charge by modern states' righters of usurpation of power by the Supreme Court. In each historical period the effect of the Court interpretations on the autonomy of the state governments and on the acceleration of federal centralization is considered. Originally published in 1958. A UNC Press Enduring Edition -- UNC Press Enduring Editions use the latest in digital technology to make available again books from our distinguished backlist that were previously out of print. These editions are published unaltered from the original, and are presented in affordable paperback formats, bringing readers both historical and cultural value.

"Consists ... of the four Chichele lectures delivered at Oxford University under the auspices of All Souls College early in 1975"--Preface

Constitutional scholars Christopher P. Banks and John C. Blakeman offer the most current and the first book-length study of the U.S. Supreme Court’s “new federalism” begun by the Rehnquist Court and now flourishing under Chief Justice John Roberts. Using descriptive and empirical methods in political science and legal scholarship, and informed by diverse approaches to judicial ideology, from historical to new institutionalist, they investigate how the U.S. Supreme Court rulings have shaped the political principle of federalism. While the Rehnquist Court reinvorgorated new federalism by protecting state sovereignty and set new constitutional limits on federal power, Banks and Blakeman show that in the Roberts Court new federalism continues to evolve in a docket increasingly attentive to statutory construction, preemption, and business litigation. In addition, they analyze areas of federalism not normally studied by scholars such as religious liberty and foreign affairs.