DATE: Wednesday, July 2, 1997               TAG: 9707020024

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B12  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial 

                                            LENGTH:   56 lines

SUPREME COURT TERM STATES RIGHTS IS A THEME THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR: STATE LEGISLATURES MATTER

With the end last week of its 1996-97 term, the U.S. Supreme Court is being analyzed by legions of court watchers. Deservedly, most of the pronouncements are positive.

While honoring the conservative bent of a majority of its members, the court has also offered centrist opinions and, occasionally, even a liberal pronouncement. Gay rights have been protected and women have been ordered into Virginia Military Institute, even as public schoolteachers have been allowed into parochial schools for remedial work, and the ability of individuals to sue local governments has been curtailed.

The sum result is described by Notre Dame constitutional scholar Douglas Kmiec as ``the common sense court . . . the pragmatic court.''

``It is also a very smart court, in terms of sheer intellectual firepower,'' adds Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe.

If an abiding principle guides this court, it appears to have less to do with the liberal-to-conservative continuum than with a vision of federalism that elevates state sovereignty. The court seems determined to return to the states some of the power that has seeped away over several decades.

So long as policies of broad and vital national interest are not undermined (the Americans With Disabilities Act comes to mind), that is a prudent direction that dovetails with the current national will.

At times, it may seem simpler to substitute national legislation for piecemeal state action, as with the Brady Bill aimed at controlling access to guns. But the court's objection to Brady - that local and state law enforcement officers are being conscripted into performing records' checks on gun buyers, without compensation - seems valid.

Congress can, and probably will, find another way to perform the background checks. Almost everyone except die-hard gun-rights enthusiasts agrees that the checks are an important deterrent, and the court has said nothing to the contrary.

Meanwhile, a variety of other court decisions are turning state legislatures into the essential public forum. The national debate over physician-assisted suicide will be played out largely at the state level. The court has elevated the role of state and local governments in matters ranging from the treatment of sex predators to the use of public funds in parochial schools.

Ironically, this resurrected authority comes at a time of dwindling interest in service in the Virginia legislature. In contrast to 1995 when many races were contested, about two-thirds of the incumbents in the Virginia House of Delegates will not face a major-party opponent this fall.

The Supreme Court can elevate legislative agendas. But the honorables cannot affect the caliber or enthusiasm of those who will decide the debate. That is a task for political-party officials, who should be spreading the word that federalism is alive, well and bringing new importance to what transpires in state capitals.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu