Add to ORKGProfessor Laycock\u27s commentary is written in response to Lea Brilmayer\u27s article in this edition. Brilmayer and Laycock agree that states owe equal treatment to citizens of sister states, and that the obligation does not extend to the exercise of government power. But Laycock would derive these rules from constitutional text and structural needs of the federal union. He think that Brilmayer\u27s broader political theory is only marginally relevant to their shared conclusion
The Supreme Court of the United States based its landmark decision in Shelby County v. Holder on t...
Both Kymlicka and Patten argue that the equal treatment of different national groups require that th...
I would like to make a series of observations (and develop a few) that I hope will advance, rather t...
Professor Laycock\u27s commentary is written in response to Lea Brilmayer\u27s article in this editi...
Interstate cases pose most dramatically the question of the legitimacy of a state\u27s exercise of c...
Professor Brilmayer responds to the commentaries of Professors Laycock, Tushnet, and George
Interstate cases pose most dramatically the question of the legitimacyof a state\u27s exercise of co...
This commentary responds to an article by Lea Brilmayer in this edition. Professor Tushnet challenge...
This paper advances a novel argument for why states are juridically equal. It embraces a fundamental...
This colloquy was organized around the unpleasant hypothesis that the Supreme Court would overrule R...
States’ rights is often perceived as a single and unchanging doctrine, but American political though...
This Article examines that common ground, analyzing the roles of state policy interests and contacts...
The primary goal of this Article is to demonstrate that the interest in national unity does importan...
Professor George analyzes what he sees as Professor Brilmayer\u27s major thesis: that neither modern...
The Article is divided into six sections. Section II begins with an analysis of the conceptual relat...
The Supreme Court of the United States based its landmark decision in Shelby County v. Holder on t...
Both Kymlicka and Patten argue that the equal treatment of different national groups require that th...
I would like to make a series of observations (and develop a few) that I hope will advance, rather t...
Professor Laycock\u27s commentary is written in response to Lea Brilmayer\u27s article in this editi...
Interstate cases pose most dramatically the question of the legitimacy of a state\u27s exercise of c...
Professor Brilmayer responds to the commentaries of Professors Laycock, Tushnet, and George
Interstate cases pose most dramatically the question of the legitimacyof a state\u27s exercise of co...
This commentary responds to an article by Lea Brilmayer in this edition. Professor Tushnet challenge...
This paper advances a novel argument for why states are juridically equal. It embraces a fundamental...
This colloquy was organized around the unpleasant hypothesis that the Supreme Court would overrule R...
States’ rights is often perceived as a single and unchanging doctrine, but American political though...
This Article examines that common ground, analyzing the roles of state policy interests and contacts...
The primary goal of this Article is to demonstrate that the interest in national unity does importan...
Professor George analyzes what he sees as Professor Brilmayer\u27s major thesis: that neither modern...
The Article is divided into six sections. Section II begins with an analysis of the conceptual relat...
The Supreme Court of the United States based its landmark decision in Shelby County v. Holder on t...
Both Kymlicka and Patten argue that the equal treatment of different national groups require that th...
I would like to make a series of observations (and develop a few) that I hope will advance, rather t...