Horizontal Federalism

Interstate Relations

Joseph F. Zimmerman

• Publisher: SUNY Press
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN:
  9781438435442
  9781438435459
• eBook ISBN:
  9781438435466
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: American Government
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Provides detailed information and an analysis of interstate relations, and advances recommendations to improve the economic and political union.

Cooperative interstate relations are essential for the maintenance of the economic union and the political union established by a confederacy or a federacy. This suggests that interstate relations would be featured prominently in the literature of the U.S. federal system, yet relatively few scholars have studied horizontal state relations. This volume provides detailed information and an analysis of interstate relations, and advances recommendations to improve the economic and political union. The ultimate goal is to stimulate scholarly research on important yet neglected interstate issues.

NOTES

---

CHAPTER ONE. HORIZONTAL FEDERALISM

1. Donald Janson, “Iowa is Called Aggressor State: Nebraska Fears Shooting War,” The New York Times, July 26, 1964, pp. 1, 24.

2. W. Brooke Graves, ed., “Intergovernmental Relations in the United States,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, January 1940, pp. 1–218; Richard H. Leach, ed., “Intergovernmental Relations in America Today,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, November 1974, pp. 1–169; and John Kincaid, ed., “American Federalism: The Third Century,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1990, pp. 11–152.

3. Robert C. Newhold, The Albany Congress and the Plan of Union of 1754 (New York: Vantage Press, 1955).

4. Henry S. Commager, ed., Documents of American History to 1898, 8th ed. (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968), vol. I, p. 120.

5. For information on the differences between a confederation and a federation, see Joseph F. Zimmerman, Contemporary American Federalism: The Growth of National Power, 2nd ed. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008), pp. 4–7.

6. Commager, Documents of American History, vol. I, pp. 128–32.

7. Martin Diamond, “What the Framers Meant by Federalism.” In Robert A. Goldwin, ed., A Nation of States: Essays on the American Federal System, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1974), p. 29.

8. William H. Riker, Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1964), pp. 17–20.

9. Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), vol. II, p. 24.

10. United States Constitution, art. I, §8.

11. Joseph F. Zimmerman, Congressional Preemption: Regulatory Federalism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005).

12. Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3207, 49 U.S.C §521. States were unable to solve the problem of commercial vehicle drivers holding operator licenses from several states and continuing to drive after a state suspended or revoked a license. The congressional statute makes it a federal crime for an operator of a commercial vehicle to hold more than one operator license.

13. Erik Eckholm, “Law's Effect: An Iowa Girl Is Abandoned in Nebraska,” The New York Times, October 9, 2008, p. A21.

14. Erik Eckholm, “Nebraska Limits Safe-Haven Law to Infants,” The New York Times November 22, 2008, pp. A10, A14.

15. 1 Stat. 191.

16. 1 Stat. 491.

17. Sterns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S. 223, 21 S.Ct. 73 (1900) and Ervien v. United States, 251 U.S. 41, 40 S.Ct. 75 (1919).

18. Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 at 567. 31 S.Ct. 688 at 690 (1911).

19. Consult Joseph F. Zimmerman, Interstate Disputes: The Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006).

20. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dallas 419 (1793).

21. Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, 128 S.Ct. 1801 (2008).

22. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 98 S.Ct. 1970 (1979).

23. 1 Stat. 137 and Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 6 Peters 515 (1832). See also 19 Stat. 200, 25 U.S.C. §261.

24. See David E. Wilkins, “Breaking Into the Intergovernmental Matrix: The Lumbee Tribes' Efforts to Secure Federal Acknowledgment,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 23, Fall 1993, pp. 123–42.

25. Indian Gaming Regulation Act of 1988, 102 Stat. 2467, 25 U.S.C. §2710. See also Anne M. McCulloch, “The Politics of Indian Gaming: Tribe/State Relations and American Federalism,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 24, Summer 1994, pp. 99–112.

26. State ex rel. Stephan V. Finney, 836 P.2d 1169 (Kan. 1992).

27. James Dao, “Indians Offer State a Share of Monticello Casino Profits,” The New York Times, March 2, 1995, p. B6.

28. James M. Odato, “Casino Quest Gets Help,” Times Union (Albany, NY), January 3, 2009, p. 1.

29. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. SAC and Fox Nation, 508 U.S. 114, 113 S.Ct. 1985 (1993).

30. 62 Stat. 757, 18 U.S.C. §1151.

31. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. 450 at 451, 115 S.Ct. 2214 at 2217 (1995).

32. Robert N. Clinton, “Once Again, Indian Tribes are Losing Ground,” The National Law Journal, December 19, 1994, p. A21.

33. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 28 S.Ct. 207 (1908).

34. Daniel McCool, “Intergovernmental Conflict and Indian Water Rights: An Assessment of Negotiated Settlements,” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 23, Winter 1993, p. 101.

35. Seth Faison, “Newark Residents Accused of Taking New York Welfare,” The New York Times, March 2, 1994, pp. 1 and B2.

36. “Pataki Unveils Plan to Fight Welfare Recipients' Double-Dipping,” Times Union (Albany, NY), September 10, 1995, p. D-4.

37. United States Constitution, art. IV, §3.

38. Larry Rohter, “Rich Debtors Finding Shelter Under a Populist Law,” The New York Times, July 25, 1993, pp. 1, 26.

39. Ashlea Ebeling, “Florida or Bust: Suddenly It Matters a Lot, for Death Taxes, Where You Die,” Forbes 173, March 13, 2004, pp. 171–72.

40. An Act to Establish a Uniform System of Bankruptcy of 1898, 30 Stat. 544, 11 U.S.C. §1. See also the Bankruptcy Act of 1933, 47 Stat. 1467, 11 U.S.C.A §1, and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, 119 Stat. 23, 11 U.S.C. §101.

41. Elizabeth Schwinn, “Moynihan Sees States Warring over Welfare,” Times Union (Albany, NY), July 22, 1995, pp. 1, A8.

CHAPTER TWO. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS REFEREE

1. Removal of Causes Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 554, 28 U.S.C. §1441 (1995).

2. Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3847, 28 U.S.C. §1332.

3. Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73 at 80–81. See also 36 Stat. 1156, 28 U.S.C. §1251(a). The act also grants the Supreme Court authority to promulgate necessary rules for the conduct of business in United States courts.

4. Joseph F. Zimmerman, Interstate Disputes: The Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006).

5. Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496, 26 S.Ct. 268 (1905).

6. Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 at 570, 103 S.Ct. 2558 at 2568 (1983), and Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 542 U.S. 437 at 450, 112 S.Ct. 789 at 798 (1992).

7. “The Original Jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court,” Stanford Law Review, July, 1959, pp. 665–719; and Vincent L. McKusick, “Discretionary Gatekeeping: The Supreme Court's Management of Its Original Jurisdiction Docket Since 1961,” Maine Law Review 45, 1993, p. 188.

8. United States Supreme Court Rule 17.

9. Tony Mauro, “Supreme Court First: A Female Special Master,” Legal Times, January 16, 2008, p. 1.

10. New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 1307, 128 ...

Table of contents

• TITLE PAGE
• PREFACE
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• ONE HORIZONTAL FEDERALISM
• TWO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS REFEREE
• THREE THE INTERSTATE COMPACT CLAUSE
• FOUR THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
• FIVE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE
• SIX THE RENDITION CLAUSE
• SEVEN THE MERCANTILISM PROBLEM
• EIGHT INTERSTATE ECONOMIC COMPETITION
• NINE INTERSTATE TAX REVENUE COMPETITION
• TEN INTERSTATE COOPERATION
• ELEVEN IMPROVED HORIZONTAL RELATIONS
• NOTES
• BIBLIOGRAPHY