Guess What Happened on the Way to Revolution? Precursors to the Supreme Court's Federalism Revolution

In recent years, the Rehnquist Court has been accused of usheringin a "federalism revolution." The Court's decisions have beencontentious and often viewed as assertions of the Court's anti-majoritarianpower. However, these assessments misunderstand the role ofthe Court in the American political system. Not only are theCourt's recent decisions relatively modest departures from existingconstitutional doctrine, but its rediscovery of federalism follows,rather than leads, developments in the elected branches. Effortsto rehabilitate federalism as a political value began in theelected branches as early as the 1960s. By 1980, federalismhad become an important cleavage issue between the parties;Republicans advocated a form of "fixed federalism" while Democratsadvocated a form of "flexible federalism." Despite the desireof the Reagan and Bush administrations to use the judiciaryto advance the GOP's view of federalism, confirmation hearingsfor members of the Rehnquist Court demonstrate that Democratsin Congress paid little attention to federalism. Attitudes aboutfederalism thus made their way onto the Court without noticeand without challenge, and the sharp disagreements that emergedon the Court during the late-1990s mirror the same party cleavagesthat developed much earlier in the elected branches.