How did states react to the changes in laws from the supreme court decisions?

Share to Email

One of the myths of our political system is that the

Supreme Court has the last word on the scope and meaning of federal law. But time

and time again, Congress has shown its dissatisfaction with Supreme Court

interpretations of laws it passes--by amending or re-enacting the legislation to

clarify its original intent and overrule a contrary Court construction.

The Supreme Court often insists that Congress cannot really "overrule"

its decisions on what a law means: The justices' interpretation has to be correct

since the Constitution gives final say to the highest court in the land. But

Congress certainly has the power to pass a new or revised law that "changes" or

"reverses" the meaning or scope of the law as interpreted by the Court, and the

legislative history of the new law usually states that it was intended to

"overrule" a specific Court decision.

Often the reversal is in highly technical areas, such as the statute of

limitations in securities-fraud cases, the jurisdiction of tribal courts on

Indian reservations, or the power of state courts to order denaturalization of

citizens. But in the last 20 years, a main target of congressional "overruling"

has been the Supreme Court's decisions in the area of civil rights.

In 1982, for example, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to

overrule a narrow Supreme Court holding in Mobile v. Bolden, a 1980 decision

that addressed whether intentional discrimination must be shown before the act

could be invoked. In 1988, Congress overruled another Supreme Court decision (in

the 1984 case Grove City College v. Bell) by passing the Civil Rights

Restoration Act, which broadened the coverage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964. The legislative history of that law specifically recited that "certain

aspects of recent decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court have unduly

narrowed or cast doubt upon" a number of federal civil rights statutes and that

"legislative action is necessary to restore the prior consistent and

long-standing executive branch interpretations" of those laws.

Explanation:

shang dynasty

western zhou (ca. 1046-771 bce)

eastern zhou (ca. 771-256 bce)

the answer i chose to believe is 'harmony'