Congruence, Proportionality, and the ADA

[John Noble]

Are you saying that there is no textual basis for imposing a
congruence and proportionality test on sec. 5 legislation, but not
Commerce Clause legislation; and no other rationale except for the
abrogation of immunity that follows from sec. 5? Or do I
misunderstand?

John Noble

At 10:49 PM -0500 3/13/01, Michael MASINTER wrote:
>I agree, subject to what would seem the inevitable reconsideration of
>Garcia and resurrection of National League of Cities.
>
>Michael R. Masinter                     3305 College Avenue
>Nova Southeastern University            Fort Lauderdale, Fl. 33314
>Shepard Broad Law Center                (954) 262-6151
>masinter at nova.edu                       Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel
>
>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 LoAndEd at AOL.COM wrote:
>
>  > Title I of the ADA is permissible Commerce Clause legislation
>regulating the
>  > employment relationship, even if (per Garrett) it isn't
>permissible section 5
>  > legislation.  Accordingly, the substantive obligations of title I remain in
>  > effect even as to the States, and may be enforced by means other
>than private
>  > suits against the States.
>  >
>  > Marty Lederman
>  >
>  > John Noble writes:
>  >
>  > <<
>  >  If it isn't the abrogation of immunity that triggers the congruence
>  >  and proportionality test, then doesn't federal enforcement fall with
>  >  private enforcement in Garrett.
>  >   >>
>  >
>  >