|
Under the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers established a governmental system in which functions are divided not only among separate branches but also among a national (or federal) government and the governments of the states and their respective localities. The Constitution established a limited federal government that, although supreme within its identified spheres, left a large amount of the governance of the country to state and local governments. Despite the significant growth of the federal government over the 20th century, the majority of governmental functions upon which citizens depend are still the responsibility of the state governments, including the resolution of most legal disputes. The state court systems collectively handle many times the volume of cases handled in federal courts, even disregarding a very large volume of comparatively simple traffic and ordinance violations that are within states’ jurisdictions. In both civil and criminal jurisprudence, there can be some overlapping areas of responsibility, but, for practical reasons alone, the limited size of the federal judiciary requires that most of its cases be ones that truly require federal action. Relations between state and federal governments are generally smooth, but there have always been issues over which conflicts develop. One example is federal statutory preemption of state and local authority. Although state officials may acknowledge the need for federal preemption under some circumstances (e.g., environmental regulation), they feel that many acts of preemption are excessive or unnecessary. In recent years, the state courts (and sometimes the federal courts) have expressed concern about federal preemption in criminal law (federalizing crimes that are arguably already covered adequately by state laws), tort law (attempting to impose restrictions on damages that may be awarded by state courts), and even regulation of the bar (e.g., federal trade agreements/treaties that supercede state law, including traditional state control of who may practice before state courts, and legislation introduced to regulate the competence of counsel in capital cases). Good state-federal relations facilitate effective policy development for resolving significant problems and allow for more effective procedures and resource allocation between state and federal governments. Because state and federal branches of government are often structured or function similarly, practical operational advances in one system can often benefit the other. The resources available on this topic explore recommended mechanisms for promoting better relationships between the state and federal courts, including the organization of state-federal judicial councils.
|
|
