rt has exhibited the ability to act in accordance with the most correct interpretation of the Constitution, which can be described as a cooperative federalist approach. However, there have been times when the court has failed to follow the intentions of the Constitution. Those cases are: (1) U.S. v E.C. Knight (2) Hammer v Dagenhart (3) Carter v Carter Coal Co. Surprisingly, U.S. v Lopez does not fall under this category. Though the decision limited the scope of congressional power, it remained true to the idea that the national government can exert its powers exclusively when made under its implied and enumerated powers. The statement made in the midterm prompt suggested that the court decisions regarding the Commerce Clause were shaped by two interrelated factors—the scope of congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the power of the state to regulate under the Tenth Amendment. This statement is correct in the sense that the cases are influenced by these factors. However, it fails to give attention to the fact that, invariably in the three decisions that gave states more rights, a need to curb national government supremacy was a more important factor than the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, the dual federalist approach was not the major factor either because the three aforementioned cases were all decided more as a response to the expansion of national supremacy than a desire to exert states rights. The Supreme Court has not always been capable of following the correct interpretation of the Constitution because of the effects of prior cases and political influences. In order to do so in the future, the Supreme Court need only remember that the constitution was meant to-- enhance national government power, the national government is supreme when its laws are made in the pursuance of the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment gives the states a passive and not aggressive power. ...
