Class 7 – 9/5/17
Federalism Limits on Congressional Power I – Tenth Amendment
- The Tenth Amendment (348-349)
- New York v. United States (355-368)
- Printz v. United States (368-383)
The lecture notes are here.
Printz v. United States
The case of Printz v. United States was brought by two sheriffs. Sheriff/Coroner Jay Printz of Ravali County, Montana, and Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona. Both were the Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEO), subject to the background-check mandate of the Brady Act’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Printz was represented by Stephen Halbrook, and Mack represented by David Hardy.
I’ve spoken to both plaintiffs, and they are very interesting officers–they certainly look the part of CLEOs. Mack insists that the case should be called Mack v. United States, because his name came first alphabetically (docket numbers be damned!).
Following this case, Jay Printz would serve as Sheriff until 1999, and then became a member of the Board of the National Rifle Association. Richard Mack ran unsuccessfully for Congress in Arizona and Texas.
From left to right: Atty. Dave Hardy; Sheriff Richard Mack, Arizona; Sheriff Sam Frank, Vermont; Atty. Stephen Hallbrook; Sheriff Printz, Montana.
Sheriff Richard Mack at the Utah Capitol.
Stephen Halbrook arguing Printz v. United States. Note Justice Scalia has a hipsteriffic beard.
More pictures of Sheriff Printz