This Commentary argues that the Court decided New York v. United States incorrectly. The Court failed to take into account both the highly pragmatic nature of federal-state questions and the extent to which state interests are represented in the national political process. The Court, instead, should have followed the author\u27s Federalism Proposal whereby all issues of federalism arising under the Tenth Amendment are deemed non-justiciable and are left to the political branches for resolution. This Commentary illustrates the shortcomings of the New York approach in the context of national health care regulation
Many commentators have criticized the Supreme Court\u27s New Federalism decisions as excessively fo...
The conventional wisdom is that the Rehnquist Court has a federalism agenda-restricting the scope of...
The federal courts routinely encounter issues of state law. Often a state court will have already an...
This Commentary points out that the decision in New York v. United States is flawed because the Cour...
We are now in the midst of a confused era for federalism doctrine. A court of appeals has read the S...
The Supreme Court is currently faced with a direct conflict over allocation of federal and state aut...
From 1937 to 1995, federalism was part of a “Constitution in exile.” Except for the brief interlude ...
Among the most significant decisions of the Supreme Court over the past decade have been those limit...
In 1976, in National League of Cities v. Usery, the Supreme Court distinguished acts of Congress reg...
Several of the essays in this symposium, Constructing a New Federalism: Jurisdictional Competition a...
This article addresses the Burger Supreme Court’s approach to federalism and concludes that the Cour...
State constitutionalism has always seemed a poor step-sister to federal constitutionalism. When the ...
Several intriguing and difficult questions about the federal-state allocation of power remain open e...
The Supreme Court\u27s recent Tenth Amendment decisions, New York v. United States and Printz v. Uni...
The Constitution does not use the words federal or federalism. It gives Congress a set of powers and...
Many commentators have criticized the Supreme Court\u27s New Federalism decisions as excessively fo...
The conventional wisdom is that the Rehnquist Court has a federalism agenda-restricting the scope of...
The federal courts routinely encounter issues of state law. Often a state court will have already an...
This Commentary points out that the decision in New York v. United States is flawed because the Cour...
We are now in the midst of a confused era for federalism doctrine. A court of appeals has read the S...
The Supreme Court is currently faced with a direct conflict over allocation of federal and state aut...
From 1937 to 1995, federalism was part of a “Constitution in exile.” Except for the brief interlude ...
Among the most significant decisions of the Supreme Court over the past decade have been those limit...
In 1976, in National League of Cities v. Usery, the Supreme Court distinguished acts of Congress reg...
Several of the essays in this symposium, Constructing a New Federalism: Jurisdictional Competition a...
This article addresses the Burger Supreme Court’s approach to federalism and concludes that the Cour...
State constitutionalism has always seemed a poor step-sister to federal constitutionalism. When the ...
Several intriguing and difficult questions about the federal-state allocation of power remain open e...
The Supreme Court\u27s recent Tenth Amendment decisions, New York v. United States and Printz v. Uni...
The Constitution does not use the words federal or federalism. It gives Congress a set of powers and...
Many commentators have criticized the Supreme Court\u27s New Federalism decisions as excessively fo...
The conventional wisdom is that the Rehnquist Court has a federalism agenda-restricting the scope of...
The federal courts routinely encounter issues of state law. Often a state court will have already an...