Each state in the United States along with the District of Columbia has a department or division that is responsible for administering laws related to motor vehicles.. States collect hun
Trang 1Political-Military Affairs The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs provides guidance and coordinates policy formulation on national security issues, including nonproliferation of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and missile tech-nology, nuclear and conventional arms control, defense relations and security assistance, and export controls It acts as the department’s primary liaison with the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT The bureau also participates in all major arms control, nonproliferation, and other security-related negotiations
The bureau’s major activities are designed
to further U.S national security objectives by stabilizing regional military balances through negotiations and security assistance, negotiating reductions in global inventories of weapons of mass destruction and curbing their prolifera-tion, maintaining global access for U.S military forces, inhibiting adversaries’ access to militarily significant technologies, and promoting respon-sible U.S defense trade
Protocol The Chief of Protocol is the principal adviser to the U.S government, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of state on matters of diplomatic procedure governed by law
or international custom and practice The office is responsible for visits of foreign chiefs of state, heads of government, and other high officials to the United States; operation of the president’s guest house, Blair House; and conduct of official ceremonial functions and public events It is charged with the accreditation of more than 103,000 embassy, consular, international organi-zation, and other foreign government personnel and members of their families throughout the United States In addition, the office determines entitlement to diplomatic or consularIMMUNITY Office of International Information Programs
In 1999 Congress dissolved theU.S.INFORMATION AGENCYand transferred its functions to the Office
of International Information Programs This office designs for and distributes Internet and print publications to media, government officials, and the general public in 140 countries It em-phasizes the electronic distribution of informa-tion through various Web sites and CD-ROMs
Foreign Service
Foreign relations are conducted principally
by the U.S Foreign Service In 2009, 11,000 representatives at 175 foreign missions through-out the world reported to the Department of
State on foreign developments that had a bearing
on the welfare and security of the United States These trained representatives provided the presi-dent and the secretary of state with much of the raw material from which foreign policy is made and with the recommendations that help shape it
Ambassadors are the personal representa-tives of the president and report to the president through the secretary of state Ambassadors have full responsibility for implementation of U.S foreign policy by any and all U.S govern-ment personnel within their country of assign-ment, except those under military commands Their responsibilities include negotiating agree-ments between the United States and the host country, explaining and disseminating official U.S policy, and maintaining cordial relations with that country’s government and people
FURTHER READINGS Plischke, Elmer 1999 U.S Department of State: A Reference History Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
State Department Available online at http://www.state.gov (accessed June 13, 2009).
U.S Government Manual Website Available online at http:// www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual (accessed June 13, 2009) CROSS REFERENCES
Ambassadors and Consuls; Arms Control and Disarma-ment; International Law; Treaty.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Every state has a department or division that administers laws related to motor vehicles Each of these departments or divisions handles registration
of motor vehicles, and many handle a number of other services, such as licensing of drivers and collection of fees and taxes
Each state in the United States along with the District of Columbia has a department or division that is responsible for administering laws related to motor vehicles In every state, this agency is responsible for registration of motor vehicle titles and maintaining motor vehicle registrations Other specific duties vary from state to state
A state’s motor vehicle department plays an important role not only from the perspective
of regulating motor vehicles but also from the perspective of revenue production States collect hundreds of millions of dollars and sometimes more each year in various fees and taxes, repre-senting a significant portion of each state’s annual
348 STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Trang 2revenue A smaller state such as Delaware
moni-tors and processes more than 850,000 registered
vehicles and collects about $256 million annually
By contrast, a larger state such as Texas oversees
registration of more than 21 million vehicles, and
the state generates more than $4 billion annually
through its motor vehicle business
Organization
The names of motor vehicle departments vary
widely from state to state In some states, such
as California, New York, and Texas, the entity is
a distinct department with the title of
depart-ment of motor vehicles In a number of other
states, agencies are divisions of larger
depart-ments and have such titles as division of motor
vehicles, motorist services, driver and vehicle
services, or bureau of motor vehicles
The various state departments that oversee
motor vehicles likewise vary from state to state
These various departments include, for instance,
a department of revenue (Alabama);
depart-ment of administration (Alaska); departdepart-ment of
finance and administration (Arkansas);
DEPART-MENT OF STATE (several); and DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (several)
In a number of states, different
depart-ments and divisions handle various services For
example, the Oklahoma Driver’s License
Ser-vices of the Department of Public SerSer-vices
handles licensing of drivers, while the state’s
Motor Vehicle Division of the Oklahoma Tax
Commission handles registration of vehicles
Likewise, in South Dakota, the state’s Driver
Licensing Program of the South Dakota
Department of Public Safety handles issuance
of driver licenses, whereas the state’s Division of
Motor Vehicles in the South Dakota Department
of Revenue and Regulation handles licensing
and registration of vehicles
In the first decade of the 2000s, a few states
substantially reorganized their motor vehicle
de-partments These reorganizations reflect needs
in those states to streamline operations to reduce
costs, along with other concerns In 2009
Mas-sachusetts approved a statute designed to
mod-ernize its transportation system by integrating
several services into the new Massachusetts
Department of Transportation Under this new
system of organization, the state’s Registry of
Motor Vehicles became one division of the
department, along with Highway, Mass Transit,
and Aeronautics The State of Texas in 2009
likewise made a substantial change by creating its new Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and moving several divisions from the state’s Depart-ment of Transportation into the new DMV
Functions of Motor Vehicle Departments
Motor Vehicle Titles and Registration Every state has an agency designated to handle issuance
of vehicle titles and registration In most instances, county offices, such as tax offices, handle these registrations The local offices also handle issuance of license plates, tags, and similar requirements
Enforcement of Mandatory Liability Insur-ance In many states, the motor vehicles depart-ment coordinates efforts with the state’s public safety department to ensure that applicants for motor vehicles licenses have obtained manda-tory liability insurance The methods used to verify insurance varies from state to state In Alabama, for example, the state’s Department
of Revenue conducts a random survey of vehicle owners to determine whether these owners are maintaining liability insurance
Driver Licenses In some states, services related
to licensing of drivers are handled by the state’s motor vehicle department For instance, in Delaware, the Driver Services Division of the state’s Division of Motor Vehicles handles education, testing, licensing, monitoring, and improvement of the state’s licensed drivers In other states, driver licenses are handled by the state’s department of public services
The departments that handle driver licenses also typically handle issuance of identification cards
Other Licensing and Collection of Fees and Taxes In some states, the department of motor vehicles handles the licensing of dealers and manufacturers of motor vehicles In Texas, for instance, the state agency is responsible not only for licensing of dealers and manufacturers, but also for arbitrating disputes between dealers and manufacturers as well as for enforcing the state’sLEMON LAWS
In additional registration fees, the motor vehicle departments in some states are also responsible for overseeing collection of the state’s motor vehicle tax This tax is collected
by fuel dealers and is typically used to fund a state’s highway projects
STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 349
Trang 3Online Services
In the 1990s and early 2000s, most state motor vehicle departments started offering more ser-vices online In Pennsylvania, for example, Internet users can use the state’s Driver and Vehicle Services site to renew their driver’s license, photo ID, and vehicle registration Other states have established websites to provide information for the public on a variety of topics
For instance, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles established the website Takethewheel.net to provide information for parents and teens about safe driving
FURTHER READING Findlaw.com DMV Offices and Forms Available online
at http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/
state-dmv/ (accessed January 26, 2010).
STATE INTEREST
A broad term for any matter of public concern that is addressed by a government in law or policy
State legislatures pass laws to address matters
ofPUBLIC INTEREST and concern A law that sets speed limits on public highways expresses an interest in protecting public safety A statute that requires high-school students to pass com-petency examinations before being allowed to graduate advances the state’s interest in having
an educated citizenry
Although the state may have a legitimate interest in public safety, public health, or an array of other issues, a law that advances a state interest may also intrude on important consti-tutional rights The U.S SUPREME COURT has devised standards of review that govern how a state interest will be constitutionally evaluated
When a law affects a constitutionally pro-tected interest, the law must meet theRATIONAL BASIS TEST This test requires that the law be rationally related to a legitimate state interest
For example, a state law that prohibits a person from selling insurance without a license deprives people of their right to make contracts freely
Yet, the law will be upheld because it is a rational means of advancing the state interest in protect-ing persons from fraudulent or unscrupulous insurance agents Most laws that are challenged
on this basis are upheld, as there is usually some type of reasonable relation between the state interest and the way the law seeks to advance that interest
When a law or policy affects a fundamental constitutional right, such as the right to vote or the right to privacy, theSTRICT SCRUTINYtest will
be applied This test requires the state to advance
a compelling state interest to justify the law or policy Strict scrutiny places a heavy burden on the state For example, in Roe v Wade, 410 U.S
113, 93 S Ct 705, 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973), the state interest in protecting unborn children was held not to be compelling enough to overcome
a woman’s right to privacy When the state interest is not sufficiently compelling, the law is struck down as unconstitutional
With the growth of the women’s movement, the Supreme Court became more sensitive to the problems of gender DISCRIMINATION and,
in the process, began to change the law concerning the level of scrutiny for cases involvingSEX DISCRIMINATION Gender-based laws and regulations are subjected to a HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY under what has been called an
“intermediate standard of review.” The inter-mediate standard of review falls between the rational basis test and the strict scrutiny test Under this level of review, a state policy that distinguishes between men and women will not
be upheld unless it can be shown that the distinction serves an“important state interest” and that the means chosen are substantially related to the achievement of that interest Applying this standard, the Supreme Court has stressed that when a classification is based on gender alone, there must be an exceedingly persuasive justification by the state to sustain it
STATE LOTTERY State lottery is a game of chance operated by a state government
Generally a lottery offers a person the chance to win a prize in exchange for something
of lesser value Most lotteries offer a large cash prize, and the chance to win the cash prize is typically available for one dollar Because the number of people playing the game usually exceeds the number of dollars paid out, the lottery ensures a profit for the sponsoring state Lotteries can come in a variety of forms, but there are three basic versions: instant lotteries, general lotteries, and lotto Instant lotteries offer immediate prizes and consist of such games as scratch-off tickets and pull tabs A general lottery is a drawing with a payout based on a percentage of the amount in the aggregate
350 STATE INTEREST
Trang 4wagering pot; because all numbers bet for the
particular game are included in the drawing,
a winner is guaranteed Lotto is similar to a
general lottery in that the winning number is
chosen in a drawing However, the winning
number in a lotto game is chosen by a computer,
and the computer may not pick a number or
sequence of numbers that is held by a player If
no player has a number that matches the number
chosen by the computer, the cash prize rolls
over into the next game’s drawing Lotto usually
generates more money than other lotteries
A player must match a long sequence of numbers,
and doing so raises the odds against the players,
which in turn makes it more likely that the cash
prize will increase Most of the other forms of
lotteries are spin-offs of these three basic forms
More than 40 states have state-run lotteries
These lotteries are administered by state agents
and agencies, such as a director of the state
lottery and a state lottery board State legislatures
create lotteries and lottery agencies in statutes
These statutes specify details of the game, such
as the length of time a winner has to claim a prize after the relevant drawing, the documen-tation a winner must present to claim a prize, the manner of payment of the prize, and pro-cedures in case a prize is won by a corporation
or other legal entity
State statutes also specify just how the money generated by the lotteries will be used Many states direct that the profits should go into the state’s general revenue fund, whereas other states earmark the profits for a particular endeavor, such as public school education, care of SENIOR CITIZENS, or economic development
States must be careful to observe the dictates
of the statute that creates the lottery or lotteries
Other kinds ofGAMINGthat are not strictly limited
to chance are not allowed under state lottery statutes Indeed, most states make gambling a criminal offense and provide exceptions only for
Go West, Young Lottery Player
L
B
otteries are ancient games, long predating the
founding of the United States Their popularity in
Europe, and especially in England, helps explain why
the first lotteries were held in the American colonies in
1612 The colonies were under the command of the
British Crown, which did not permit them to levy taxes
But the British did authorize the Virginia Company of
London to hold games for its benefit—at least until the
scheme backfired The lotteries drained the Crown's
pockets and helped the upstart colonies, and within
a decade, the colonists' own domestic lotteries had
replaced them A century later, the colonists held
lotteries to raise funds for the War of Independence
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
lotteries played an important role in building the
new nation Its banking and taxation systems were
still in their infancy, necessitating ways to raise
capital quickly for public projects Lotteries helped
build everything from roads to jails, hospitals, and
industries and provided needed funds for hundreds
of schools and colleges Famous American leaders
such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin
saw great usefulness in them: Jefferson wanted to
hold a lottery to retire his debts, and Franklin to buy cannons for Philadelphia Lotteries expanded in the 1800s, prompting Congress in 1812 to authorize them
in the District of Columbia By midcentury, eastern states alone raised over $66 million annually, and lotteries were starting up in the West
Despite their significance to early U.S history, lotteries fell out of favor in the late 1800s Corruption, moral uneasiness, and the rise of bond sales and standardized taxation proved their downfall Only Louisiana, with a notorious lottery known as The Serpent, still held a state-run game at the end of the century Congress put a stop to it with the Anti-Lottery Act of 1890 (Act of September 19, 1890, ch
908, 26 Stat 465), a federal ban on the use of the mails for conducting lotteries that effectively ended the games for the next 70 years
New Hampshire swept in the modern era of state-sponsored lotteries in 1964 In 1974 Congress relaxed regulations for the benefit of the growing number of states holding the games (Pub L No
93-583, 88 Stat 1916 [1975]; H.R Rep No 1517, 93d Cong., 2d Sess.[1974])
STATE LOTTERY 351
Trang 5state lotteries and gaming by Native American tribes A state may not, for example, sponsor a game that involves wagering against a house, such as a dice game, blackjack, or shell games
In Western Telcon, Inc v California State Lottery (13 Cal 4th 475, 917 P.2d 651, 53 Cal Rptr 2d
812 [1996]), the Supreme Court of California ruled that a keno game offered by the California State Lottery (CSL) was not authorized under Proposition 37, the 1984 initiative measure that created the state lottery In keno, players try to match between 1 and 10 numbers to a set of
20 numbers that are selected at random Players pay a nominal fee for the opportunity to receive
a large payoff Keno, according to the court, did not meet the statutory definition of lottery because it was a game that persons played against
the CSL, which, as banker, bet against each participant that the participant would not cor-rectly guess the numbers to be drawn This kind
of game did not offer a prize by chance Instead, the CSL could win all the bets and never have
to pay a prize, or it could lose all the bets and pay a prize to each participant This kind of gaming was too similar to a banking game, and the court noted that“the voters, in Proposition
37, did not establish a state gambling house, but
a state lottery.”
State lotteries often are planned to augment
or even supplant other sources of state revenues, such as taxes Whether they can actually achieve this objective depends on the lotteries’ ability to attract players
States Gamble on Gambling
As the ultimate high-odds game, a
lottery produces very few winners
Since the rush to legalize government
lotteries began in the 1970s, states have
capitalized tremendously on the game’s
drastic odds As of 2009, 43 states and
the District of Columbia permit lotteries,
with annual revenue of almost $53
billion Supporters tout the game as an
easy revenue-raiser and a painless
alter-native to higher taxes Opponents attack
it as dishonest, unseemly, and
undepend-able They argue that the social and
administrative costs do not actually skirt
taxation but instead put the state in the
role of con artist It is also criticized as a
REGRESSIVE TAXon the poor
The case for lotteries is largely about
funding state government Lotteries are
frequently publicized as an alternative to
raising taxes Seldom is there much
enthusiasm for cutting back on cherished
state programs and services, even as
federal subsidies to states shrink Better,
say lottery supporters, to offer citizens a
choice: play or pay Unlike paying
man-datory income, property, or sales tax,
buying lottery tickets is a personal
deci-sion Funding government by lottery is
quite different from funding it by taxa-tion: Under taxation, states can depend
on a set amount of revenue each year from a captive base of taxpayers; under a lottery, revenue projections assume that enough tickets will be sold so that those who choose not to play are free to do so
Besides casting lotteries as an alter-native to taxes, supporters put forth other arguments in favor of lotteries, from the public’s love to gamble to the desire to siphon money away from illegal gambling to simply keeping up with other states that draw residents and dollars across state boundaries
The public demand for gambling is
so great, say supporters, that states that
do not offer lotteries lose potential revenues to neighboring states that do
When New Hampshire instituted its state lottery in 1964, it was the only legal lottery in the country It sold more tickets outside the state than in New Hampshire The pattern has been re-peated ever since States without lotteries see gambling money disappear into neighboring states, which fund their programs with it, necessitating a local lottery as a defensive mechanism
Critics of lotteries attack the notion
of lotteries substituting for taxation Operating the games can require rela-tively high administrative overhead In the early 1990s, the national average was
6 percent of revenues, and the highest rate was 29 percent in Montana Costs result chiefly from the need to advertise constantly Fickle players can always stray into competing states for tickets, satisfy gambling urges at casinos, or lose inter-est For this reason, lottery revenues are far less dependable than tax revenues, and states can easily find themselves spending more and earning less than projected Such a case was illustrated with the U.S economic downturn in
2008, which led to a decline of 2 percent
in lottery ticket sales nationwide
Some states have learned this lesson the hard way Maryland, for example, faced a budget crisis in the early 1990s after heavily promoting a lottery game called El Gordo, anticipating $8 million
to $10 million in revenues When players failed to buy enough tickets, the state’s profit after expenses was only $73,626 California experienced another kind of problem in fiscal year 1991–1992, as
352 STATE LOTTERY
Trang 6FURTHER READINGS
Crigler, John, John Wells King, and Amelia L Brown 1994.
“Why Sparky Can’t Bark—A Study of the Ban on
Broadcast Advertisement for Lotteries ” CommLaw
Conspectus 2.
Dolan, Patrick D 1998 “Lender’s Guide to the Securitization
of State Lottery Winnings and Litigation Settlement
Payments ” Banking Law Journal 115 (July-August).
Eberle, Todd 1994 “Education: California State Lottery—
Revenue Allocations ” Pacific Law Journal 26 (January).
Erekson, O Homer, et al 2002 “Fungibility of Lottery
Revenues and Support of Public Education ” Journal of
Education Finance 28 (fall): 301–11.
Griffin, Linda S., and Richard V Harrison 1996 “Florida
State Lottery Tax and Estate Planning Issues ” Florida
Bar Journal 70 (January).
Nibert, David 2000 Hitting the Lottery Jackpot: State
Govern-ments and the Taxing of Dreams New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Rychlack, Ronald J 1992 “Lotteries, Revenues, and Social Costs: A Historical Examination of State-Sponsored Gambling.” Boston College Law Review 34.
Wyett, Todd A 1991 “State Lotteries: Regressive Taxes in Disguise ” Tax Lawyer 44 (spring).
STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS
A document that must be filed in BANKRUPTCY, which sets forth answers to questions concerning the debtor’s past and present financial situation
The term statement of affairs is also used
to describe a type of balance sheet that shows immediate liquidation amounts, as opposed to acquisition or original costs, and is generally prepared when insolvency or bankruptcy is about to take effect
decreasing lottery sales forced it to
exceed the 16 percent limit on
adminis-trative expenses specified by law The
shortfall led to a dispute over what to do
with the interest earned on the state
lottery fund, and reformers had to act to
ensure that it would be used as intended
They passed Chapter 1236, which requires
that all interest be used to benefit public
education
Such problems lead critics to another
complaint: States exaggerate the benefits of
lotteries In education, lottery proceeds
may provide little help The Educational
Research Service (ERS), a think tank, has
argued that lotteries are actually
insignifi-cant Because lottery revenues are
occa-sionally substituted for regular funding,
ERS maintains, this unstable source of
revenue yields no more for schools than
they would have received otherwise, with
an additional drawback: Taxpayers,
reas-sured that ticket sales are footing the bill,
balk at the idea of raising taxes when
shortfalls occur Critics also scoff at claims
that lotteries hurt illegal gambling Most
studies have found only inconclusive
evidence that they have any effect at all
on crime syndicates, and law enforcement
agencies report that illegal gambling
remains as active as it was before states
reenacted lotteries
Two popular moral arguments are
advanced against lotteries The first
attacks the notion of voluntary taxation
Far from being the boon that the word voluntary suggests, critics say, the lottery
is a form of regressive taxation that hurts those least able to afford it (Taxes are considered regressive when they put a disproportionate burden on different taxpayers; a sales tax, which everyone pays at the same rate regardless of their personal wealth, is one example.) The evidence shows that the poor and working classes play lotteries the most Some people say that preying on the illusory hopes of the poor is an unseemly way to avoid taxing the more affluent
The second moral objection is to the hidden social costs Opponents of gam-bling have long held that players run the proven risk of addiction In general, governments legislate against and spend money in the process of warning citizens about high-risk behaviors But in the case
of lotteries, they do the reverse: Lottery advertising encourages playing often, and games are frequently redesigned to bring players back for more No state blatantly tells its citizens to spend more than they should; yet no state stops anyone from going overboard, and it is doubtful that any could do so The scope of the problem of compulsive lottery playing is difficult to measure, but commonly cited estimates in the 1990s indicated lottery players accounted for 9 percent of all compulsive gamblers nationwide A few states, such as New Jersey, have run
hotlines for addicts Others have consid-ered doing so Crimes associated with compulsive lottery playing—from embez-zlement to bank holdups—are staples of the news media
Although the debate goes on, state lotteries are in no danger of disappearing Their sheer profitability is alluring to legislators who would rather not propose higher taxes, and the chance of winning big keeps players hooked In all likeli-hood, the success of most states ensures that the rest will eventually join in the practice Critics continue to fault law-makers for relying on high-risk gambling, conning hapless players, putting huge sums back into the games, and ignoring the resulting social costs Yet, unlike argu-ments against lotteries in the early years of the twentieth century, these complaints have mostly gone unheard, and lotteries have been skillfully transformed in the public eye from a vice into a form of entertainment Jackpots, as every lottery player knows, speak louder than words
FURTHER READINGS Gurnett, Kate 2003 “Place Your Bets—Any-where ” Albany Times-Union (January 15) Weinart, Joe 1999 “Panel Requests More Gaming Research ” Las Vegas Review-Journal (June 3).
CROSS REFERENCES Gaming; Taxation.
STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS 353
Trang 7STATE’S EVIDENCE State’s evidence is a colloquial term for testimony given by an accomplice or joint participant in the commission of a crime, subject to an agreement that the person will be granted immunity from prosecution if the person voluntarily, completely, and fairly discloses his or her own guilt as well
as that of the other participants
State’s evidence is slang for testimony given by criminal defendants to prosecutors about other alleged criminals A criminalDEFENDANTmay agree
to provide assistance to prosecutors in exchange for an agreement from thePROSECUTORthat he will not be prosecuted This agreement is commonly called turning state’s evidence
A criminal defendant who turns state’s evidence may be offered a plea bargain or may have all criminal charges against him dismissed, depending on the nature of the case against the testifying defendant and the largesse of the
prosecutor A prosecutor may give a testifying defendant fullIMMUNITY, which means the defen-dant cannot be charged with any crime related
to the testimony he provides A lesser form of immunity is called use immunity Use immunity means that the prosecutor agrees only that she will not use any of the testimony given by the testifying defendant in any subsequent pro-secution of that defendant
Turning state’s evidence plays an important role in the criminal justice system, in large part because the system is overwhelmed by criminal prosecutions To ease the caseload, prosecutors regularly exercise their power to offer to drop or decrease charges in exchange for a plea of guilty Another by-product of the backlog of cases is that prosecutors are most concerned with successfully prosecuting the most dangerous criminals For these reasons, prosecutors com-monly ask petty criminal defendants who have access to other alleged criminals to obtain evidence from the criminals
For instance, assume that a person who has been arrested for possession of marijuana is willing to work with law enforcement to obtain inculpatory evidence from the dealer of the marijuana To do so, the defendant would return to the dealer after the arrest, purchase marijuana in a transaction monitored by law enforcement, and then give the marijuana to the authorities as evidence
A prosecutor may drop charges against a petty criminal in exchange for substantial assistance to law enforcement authorities in the prosecution of more dangerous criminals Alternatively, a prosecutor may offer a plea bargain and ask the court to impose a sentence that is less severe than the sentence normally imposed for the crime
However, a person who turns state’s evi-dence will face intenseCROSS-EXAMINATIONfrom the defense lawyer if the case goes to trial Because the person has been offered a deal or the prospect of a deal, the defense can seek to IMPEACHthe testimony by arguing that the person
is lying to improve his situation Moreover, the person usually has a criminal record that can be paraded before the jury to discredit the direct testimony
State and federal sentencing statutes govern the effect of providing substantial assistance Courts usually follow the recommendations
A billboard advertises
the South Carolina
Education Lottery.
State statutes specify
how the money
generated by lotteries
will be used.
AP IMAGES
354 STATE’S EVIDENCE
Trang 8of the prosecutor, but they are not obliged to do
so On the federal level, for example, section
5K1.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
states that a court may evaluate the significance
and usefulness of the assistance rendered by
the defendant, the truthfulness and reliability
of the defendant, the nature of the defendant’s
assistance, and other factors in determining
whether to impose a relatively light sentence
FURTHER READING
Bloom, Robert M 2002 Ratting: The Use and Abuse of
Informants in the American Justice System Westport,
Conn.: Praeger.
CROSS REFERENCES
Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Plea Bargaining.
STATES’ RIGHTS
A doctrine and strategy in which the rights of the
individual states are protected by the U.S
Constitu-tion from interference by the federal government
The history of the United States has been
marked by conflict over the proper allocation
of power between the states and the federal
government The federal system of government
established by the U.S Constitution recognized
the sovereignty of both the state governments
and the federal government by giving them
mutually exclusive powers as well as concurrent
powers States’ rights and the concept of
FEDERALISM are intertwined in discussion and
debates over the proper allocation of governing
powers between the federal government and
state governments Federalism posits that state
governments are preeminent under the
Consti-tution and that a dominant national
govern-ment is anathema to democracy The concept
of states’ rights and federalism share many, if
not most positions on political philosophy,
with states’ rights a more direct assertion of the
supremacy of the states
In the first half of the nineteenth century,
arguments over states’ rights arose in the context
of SLAVERY From the 1870s to the 1930s,
eco-nomic issues shaped the debate In the 1950s
racialSEGREGATIONand theCIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
renewed the issue of state power By the 1970s
economic and political conservatives had begun
to call for a reduction in the power and control
of the federal government and for the
redistribu-tion of responsibilities to the states
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates represented state governments that had become autonomous centers of power The Constitution avoided a precise definition of the LOCUS of sovereignty, leaving people to infer that the new charter created a divided structure
in which powers were allocated between the central government and the states in such a way that each would be supreme in certain areas
Nevertheless, defenders of states’ rights were concerned that a powerful, consolidated na-tional government would run roughshod over the states WithRATIFICATIONof the Constitution
in doubt, the Framers promised to add protec-tion for the states Accordingly, the TENTH AMENDMENT was added to the Constitution as part of the BILL OF RIGHTS The amendment stipulates that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohib-ited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This amendment became the constitutional foundation for those who wish to promote the rights and powers of the states vis-à-vis the federal government
In the early years of the Republic, states’
rights were vigorously protected An early argu-ment involved whether or not states were subject
to the jurisdiction of theSUPREME COURTand the federal government In Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L Ed 440 (1793), a South Carolina businessman sued the state of Georgia
in order to collect for payment of supplies
The state of Georgia maintained that it was a sovereign body, and so could not be sued because it was not subject to the authority of federal courts The Supreme Court dismissed this argument and ruled that the conduct of the states was subject toJUDICIAL REVIEW In response, states’ rights advocates pushed for passage of the ELEVENTH AMENDMENT, which limits the rights of persons to sue a state in federal court
In 1798THOMAS JEFFERSONandJAMES MADISON proposed the VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLVES
to clarify the role of states in checking the powers of the federal government The resolu-tions were in response to passage of the Alien Enemies and SEDITION Acts of 1798 (1 Stat
570, 1 Stat 596), which restricted a number of personal liberties In proposing the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798, Jefferson argued that the “sovereign and independent states”
had the right to“interpose” themselves between their citizens and improper national legislative
STATES’ RIGHTS 355
Trang 9actions and to “nullify” acts of Congress they deemed unconstitutional The resolutions started the seed of the doctrines of nullification and interposition, later employed by New England states during the WAR OF 1812, and by South Carolina in opposing federal tariff legislation
in 1832
John C Calhoun and the Southern States
From the early 1800s until the end of the Civil War in 1865, states’ rights played a major role in the U.S political process The doctrine was most fully articulated in the writings of South Carolina statesman and political theoristJOHN C CALHOUN Calhoun contended that if acts of the federal government ran contrary to state or local interests, then states had the right to nullify said acts Calhoun further proposed that states had the right to dissolve their contractual relation-ship with the federal government rather than submit to policies they saw as destructive to their local self-interests Followers of Calhoun linked states’ rights to slavery, and thus, protect-ing slavery became the equivalent of protectprotect-ing regional Southern interests In 1860 seven Southern states seceded from the Union to form theCONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA The constitu-tion of the CONFEDERACYbegan,“We, the people
of the Confederate States, each State acting in its own sovereign and independent character .”
Northern leaders were also prepared to manipulate the concept of states’ rights As early as the 1820s, Northern legislatures enacted personal liberty laws as devices to block the enforcement of the federal fugitive slave law
Such laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in Prigg v Pennsylvania, 41 U.S (16 Pet.)
539, 10 L Ed 1060 (1842) When Congress enacted the more stringentFUGITIVE SLAVE ACT OF
1850, Northerners responded by again creating personal liberty laws in general defiance of federal fugitive slave policy
The defeat of the South in the Civil War ended the dispute, and Congress enacted the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, in part,
to prevent states from denying certain basic rights to U.S citizens Although the Supreme Court substantially restricted the power of these amendments during the late nineteenth century,
it did so indirectly, relying on states’ rights arguments to justify its actions The judicial philosophy of the times was also marked by laissez-faire capitalism The court would invoke
the Tenth Amendment to strike down federal laws that were characterized as hostile to state interests and then use the FOURTEENTH AMEND-MENTto strike down state legislation that sought
to regulate business, labor, and the economy
Impact of the New Deal Policies
This trend continued into the twentieth cen-tury Until the 1930s, the court frequently used the Tenth Amendment as a device for striking down federal measures, from CHILD LABOR LAWS
to major pieces of President Franklin D Roose-velt’s NEW DEAL legislation Hundreds of state regulatory statutes were also overturned Only when the states sought to restrict unions or control dissenters did the court sustain these efforts
By the late 1930s, New Deal policies had dramatically increased the size and power of the federal government Proponents of states’ rights argued against extensive use of the COMMERCE CLAUSE, which gave the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce and the federal government’s power to tax for the GENERAL WELFARE Given the desperate economic situation, such arguments fell on deaf ears By the end of WORLD WAR II, centralized authority rested with the federal government
States’ rights were revived in the late 1940s over the matter of race In the 1948 election, DemocratHARRY S TRUMAN pushed for a more aggressive CIVIL RIGHTS policy Southern oppo-nents, known as the “Dixiecrats,” bolted the DEMOCRATIC PARTYand ran their own candidate,
J Strom Thurmond Their“states’ rights” plat-form called for continued racial segregation and denounced proposals for national action on behalf of civil rights
Desegregation efforts of the 1950s and 1960s, including the Supreme Court’s decision inBROWN
V.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA,KANSAS, 347 U.S
483, 74 S Ct 686, 98 L Ed 873 (1954), which ruled that racially segregated public schools were unconstitutional, also met with Southern resis-tance Segregationists again argued for state sovereignty and developed programs of massive resistance to racialINTEGRATIONin public educa-tion, public facilities, housing, and access to jobs Beginning in the 1960s, other states’ rights proponents started stressing the need for local control of government One reason was the introduction of federal WELFARE and subsidy
356 STATES’ RIGHTS
Trang 10programs The concern was that along with
federal money would come federal control
By the end of the twentieth century, a
number of efforts were being made to curtail
the broad power of the federal government For
example, in National League of Cities v Usery,
426 U.S 833, 96 S Ct 2465, 49 L Ed 2d 245
(1976), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that
Congress had exceeded its power to regulate
interstate commerce when it extended federal
MINIMUM WAGEand overtime standards to state and
local governments Determination of state
gov-ernment employees’ wages and hours is one of
the “attributes of sovereignty attaching to every
state government,” attributes that “may not be
impaired by Congress.” Less than ten years later,
however, the court overruled National League
in Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit
Authority, 469 U.S 528, 105 S Ct 1005, 83 L Ed
2d 1016 (1985) Nevertheless, the 5-4 majority in
Garcia and the court’s difficulty in articulating
a coherent Tenth Amendment JURISPRUDENCE
have left this area of states’ rights muddled
The 1980s saw a major shift in government
policy PresidentRONALD REAGANagreed with the
public that the federal government was
becom-ing too involved in state government affairs A
major focus of his administration was to reduce
the size and power of the federal government
States were given more authority to experiment
with policy initiatives, especially social
pro-grams, which had previously been directed from
Washington Subsequent administrations have
followed suit
A more conservative Supreme Court under
the leadership of Chief JusticeWILLIAM REHNQUIST
showed a renewed interest in states’ rights In
1995 the court in U.S v Lopez, 514 U.S 549,
ruled unconstitutional the Gun-Free School
Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal
crime to possess a firearm near a school
Congress had used the Commerce Clause to
justify its action but the court held that there was
no plausible connection between the possession
of a gun and interstate commerce Chief Justice
Rehnquist stated that if the court were to endorse
the government’s position “it would convert
congressional authority under the Commerce
Clause to a general POLICE POWER of the sort
retained by the States.” This was unacceptable
and an encroachment on state police powers
States sought to flex their regulatory muscles
in the early 2000s, enacting laws and regulations
that conflicted with federal law For example, the state of California enacted rigorous regula-tions that imposed stricter auto emission standards than those of the federal government
The Bush Administration and the state became embroiled in a dispute over these regulations that led the state to file a lawsuit seeking approval
of its standards However, the Obama Adminis-tration in 2009 announced that it would rethink the issue and later announced new emission standards that would render the argument moot
FURTHER READINGS Chemerinsky, Erwin 2007 Federal Jurisdiction 5th ed New York: Aspen Publishers.
Drake, Frederick D., and Lynn R Nelson 1999 States’ Rights and American Federalism: A Documentary History West-port, CT: Greenwood Press.
McDonald, Forrest 2000 States’ Rights and the Union:
Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876 Lawrence: Univ Press
of Kansas.
Sample, James J 2003 “The Sentences that Bind.” Columbia Law Review 103 (May).
CROSS REFERENCES Federalism; Fifteenth Amendment; Fourteenth Amend-ment; Kentucky Resolutions.
STATES’ RIGHTS PARTY The States’ Rights Party, also known as the Dixiecrat Party, was a short-lived political entity founded by Democrats in the South as an alternative to theDEMOCRATIC PARTYand its 1948 presidential platform In 2003, remarks expres-sing a nostalgic view of the States’ Rights Party ignited a firestorm of controversy that led to the resignation of Republican TRENT LOTT as Senate majority leader
The issue of STATES’ RIGHTS has been para-mount in southern politics and culture since the former British colonies evolved into the United States of America Advocates of states’
rights held that the states retained all the rights that had not been specifically delegated to the federal government Any attempt by the federal government to exercise powers not specifically enunciated in the Constitution, was seen as an illegal usurpation of powers that rightfully belonged to the individual states This view was one of the motivating factors of the Civil War and did not diminish with the defeat of the Confederate Army in 1865 In the period immediately after that war, theREPUBLICAN PARTY was seen as the party of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and the abolitionist forces that had not only
STATES’ RIGHTS PARTY 357