<P> Although Law Professor Eugene Gressman views these rulings as a "judicially directed perversion" of what the abolitionists meant to accomplish, within historical context the Supreme Court decisions seem more occupied with sustaining the system of dual federalism . In making these decisions, the Supreme Court aimed to keep in line with the idea of federalism as it then existed, balancing states' rights with the protection of civil liberties, rather than simply opposing the new amendments . For instance, in Strauder v. West Virginia the Court sided with those who wished to overturn the law that excluded black citizens from juries, which suggests that the Court was beginning to build a set of cases that enumerated rights based on the new amendments </P> <P> However, in other aspects the Supreme Court reasserted states' rights in relation to the 14th Amendment in particular . In the Slaughter - house cases and Bradwell v. Illinois the Court supported the view that the amendment regulated states rather than individuals practicing discrimination . Both of these cases allowed states to enforce laws that infringed on individual rights . </P> <P> The general consensus among scholars is that dual federalism ended during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency in 1937 when the New Deal policies were decided constitutional by the Supreme Court . Industrialization, economic modernization, and conditions surrounding the Great Depression elevated commerce to a more national level, so there was an overlap in the powers of the federal government and the states . The federal government, using the Commerce Clause, passed national policies to regulate the economy . The Interstate Commerce Act and Sherman Antitrust Act solidified Congress's authority to regulate commerce between states and expanded its role . This, in addition to the New Deal policies, led to the federal government and the states working together more, ending the era of dual federalism and moving America into cooperative federalism . </P> <P> However, political scientists have argued different theories concerning the end of dual federalism . As opposed to a clear transition from dual federalism to cooperative federalism, some political scientists say there was a much more complicated relationship between the states and the federal government . Rather than a competition for power, the powers of the state and federal government change according to national political movements and their agendas; a dynamic that existed both before and after the New Deal . Other political scientists see dual federalism ending much earlier than the New Deal; This would have been the beginning of cooperative federalism as the federal government identified a problem, set up the basic outline of the program to address the problem, and make money available to fund that program, and then turning over much of the responsibility for implementing and running the program to the states and localities . Daniel Elazar argues that there was substantial cooperation among the states and federal government beginning in the 19th century, leading up to the Civil War and several political scientists assert that starting from the 1870s and throughout the Progressive Era, the federal government and states worked together to create national policies . </P>

The era of dual federalism ended with the