John Marshall's Dual Federalism

John Marshall supports the cooperative view of federalism, in that he believes that the state and federal government share powers, but that the national government is supreme. From Marshall’s opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland, it is clear the he supports a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause. In the instance with the Motor Voter law, Marshall would reject the state of Illinois's argument that the statute interferes with states rights, because Marshall hold a truism interpretation of the Tenth Amendment. This belief is based on the idea that the state's only have what is not delegated to the national government and what is not restricted to them. Marshal does not believe that there is a separate sphere reserved

Taney’s opinion, on the other hand, would differ greatly from a Marshal opinion. Taney supports the dual federalism perspective, which holds that the state and national governments are equal in power, and places much emphasis on the Tenth Amendment. From Taney's opinion in Scott v. Sandford, it is evident that Taney holds an enclave view of the Tenth Amendment, meaning that there are areas of delegation specifically reserved to the states and the the federal government cannot intrude on. In the Scott v. Sandford ruling, Taney stated that Congress was out of line and had no power to regulate slavery in the territories. This court opinion invalidated the already repealed Missouri Compromise, demonstrating Taney’s support of the states overturning federal legislation that impeded on state sovereignty. Taney would support the state of Illinois’s argument that the Motor Voter Act is a violation of state sovereignty and that the state has every right to not extend this law to their own state

I agree with Marshall’s argument that the Tenth Amendment only allows the states authority in areas not delegated to the federal government, and that the federal government is not limited to its enumerated powers alone. I feel that this would make for an unproductive federal government, especially as the role of the government has expanded and changed throughout the decades. However, the state of Illinois did not argue that the federal government could not pass the Motor Voter Act under the Times, Places and Manner Clause. It allowed for the act to remain in place for federal candidates, but not for state candidates. I believe it would be reasonable to allow the states to regulate their own candidates, which Illinois did. Additionally, under New York v. U.S. and Printz v. U.S., the federal government does not have the power to compel states to implement federal