"Appropriate" means-ends constraints on Section 5 powers

With the narrowing of Congress':Article I power to regulate interstate comm erce and to authorize private suits against states,, Section Five of the Fo urteenth Amendment provides Congress with an increasingly important alterna tive source of power to regulate and police state conduct. However, in City of Boerne v. Flores and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has tightened the doctrinal test for prophylactic legislation based on Section Five. The Court has clarified Section Five's legitimate ends by holding that Congress may enforce Fourteenth Amendment rights only as they are defined by the fe deral judiciary, and the Court has constrained Section Five 's permissible means by holding that Section Five measures must be "congruent and proporti onal" to a legitimate end thus defined This article argues that the means-ends test for Section Five legislation s hould be the same as the conventional "rational relationship" test establis hed by McCulloch v. Maryland, not the "congruence and proportionality" test that the Court has recently adopted. The textual language and the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment support this argument, while neither s eparation of powers nor federalism principles persuasively justify the Cour t's contrary position. Finally, this article speculates about the significa nce of Section Five's tightened means-ends scrutiny for;other sources of co ngressional power.