DOCSLIB.ORG

State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Municipal Ordinances Held Unconstitutional Or Held to Be Preempted by Federal Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Municipal Ordinances Held Unconstitutional Or Held to Be Preempted by Federal Law STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW 2317 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVI- SIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UN- CONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW Three separate lists of Supreme Court decisions appear below: part I lists cases holding state constitutional or statutory provisions unconstitu- tional, part II lists cases holding local laws unconstitutional, and part III lists cases holding that state or local laws are preempted by federal law. As Congress acted as the legislature for the District of Columbia until passage of the Home Rule Act on December 24, 1973, District of Columbia statutes that were enacted by Congress are treated as federal statutes (and included in a prior appendix), and District of Columbia statutes en- acted by the District of Columbia government are treated as state stat- utes. Each case is briefly summarized, and the votes of Justices are indi- cated unless the Court’s decision was unanimous. Justices who write or join the majority or plurality opinion are listed under “Justices concur- ring”, whether or not they write separate concurring opinions, and Jus- tices who do not join the majority or plurality opinion, but write separate opinions concurring in the result, are listed under “Justices specially con- curring.” Previous editions contained only two lists, one for cases holding state laws unconstitutional or preempted by federal law, and one for unconsti- tutional or preempted local laws. The 2002 edition added the third cat- egory because of the different nature of preemption cases. State or local laws held to be preempted by federal law are void not because they con- travene any provision of the Constitution, but rather because they conflict with a federal statute or treaty, and through operation of the Supremacy Clause. Preemption cases formerly listed in one of the first two categories have been moved to the third. A few cases with multiple holdings are listed in more than one category. I. STATE LAWS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 1. United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cr.) 115 (1809). A Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the execution of any process issued to enforce a certain sentence of a federal court, on the ground that the federal court lacked jurisdiction in the cause, could not oust the federal court of jurisdiction. A state statute purporting to annul the judgment of a court of the United States and to destroy rights ac- quired thereunder is without legal foundation. 2319 2320 STATE LAWS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 2. Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) 87 (1810). A Georgia statute annulling conveyance of public lands autho- rized by a prior enactment violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10) of the Constitution. Justices concurring: Marshall, C.J., Washington, Livingston, Todd Justice dissenting: Johnson (in part) 3. New Jersey v. Wilson, 11 U.S. (7 Cr.) 164 (1812). A New Jersey law purporting to repeal an exemption from taxa- tion contained in a prior enactment conveying certain lands violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). 4. Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. (9 Cr.) 43 (1815). Although subsequently cited as a Contract Clause case (Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoop, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 369, 389 (1853)), the Court in the instant decision, without referring to the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10), voided, as contrary to the principles of natural justice, two Virginia acts that purported to divest the Episcopal Church of title to property “acquired under the faith of previous laws.” 5. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122 (1819). Retroactive operation of a New York insolvency law to discharge the obligation of a debtor on a promissory note negotiated prior to its adoption violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). 6. McMillan v. McNeil, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 209 (1819). A Louisiana insolvency law had no extraterritorial operation, and, although adopted in 1808, its invocation to relieve a debtor of an obli- gation contracted by him in 1811, while a resident of South Carolina, offended the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). 7. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). Under the principle of national supremacy (Art. VI), which immu- nizes instrumentalities of the Federal Government from state taxa- tion, a Maryland law imposing a tax on notes issued by a branch of the Bank of United States was held unconstitutional. 8. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819). A New Hampshire law that altered a charter granted to a private eleemosynary corporation by the British Crown prior to the Revolu- tion violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). Justices concurring: Marshall, C.J., Washington, Johnson, Livingston, Story Justice dissenting: Duvall STATE LAWS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 2321 9. Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Bank v. Smith, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 131 (1821). A Pennsylvania insolvency law, insofar as it purported to dis- charge a debtor from obligations contracted prior to its passage, vio- lated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). 10. Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1 (1823). Because the compact between Virginia and Kentucky negotiated on the occasion of the separation of the latter from the former stipu- lated that rights in lands within the ceded area should remain valid and secure under the laws of Kentucky, and should be determined by Virginia law as of the time of separation, a subsequent Kentucky law that diminished the rights of a lawful owner by reducing the scope of his remedies against an adverse possessor violated the Contracts Clause (Art. I, § 10). Justice concurring: Johnson (separately) 11. Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824). An Ohio statute levying a tax on the Bank of the United States, a federal instrumentality, was unenforceable (Art VI). Justices concurring: Marshall, C.J., Washington, Todd, Duvall, Story, Thomp- son Justice dissenting: Johnson 12. Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213 (1827). Although a New York insolvency law may be applied to discharge a debt contracted subsequently to the passage of such law, the statute could not be accorded extraterritorial enforcement to the extent of dis- charging a claim sought to be collected by a citizen of another state either in a federal court or in the courts of other states. Justices concurring: Johnson, Marshall, C.J., Duvall, Story Justices dissenting: Washington, Thompson, Trimble 13. Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 (1827). A Maryland statute that required an importer to obtain a license before reselling in the original package articles imported from abroad was in conflict with the federal power to regulate foreign commerce (Art. I, § 8, cl. 3) and with the constitutional provision (Art. I, § 10, cl. 2) prohibiting states from levying import duties. Justices concurring: Marshall, C.J., Washington, Johnson, Duvall, Story, Trimble Justice dissenting: Thompson 14. Craig v. Missouri, 29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 410 (1830). A Missouri act, under the authority of which certificates in denomi- nations of 50 cents to $10 were issued, payable in discharge of taxes 2322 STATE LAWS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL or debts owned to the state and of salaries due public officers, violated the constitutional prohibition (Art. I, § 10, cl. 10) against emission of “bills of credit” by states. Justices concurring: Marshall, C.J., Duvall, Story, Baldwin Justices dissenting: Johnson, Thompson, McLean 15. Boyle v. Zacharie, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 635 (1832). Consistently with the principle of Ogden v. Saunders, a Maryland insolvency law could not be invoked to effect discharge of an obliga- tion contracted in Louisiana subsequently to its passage. 16. Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 435 (1842). A Pennsylvania law that diminished the compensation of a fed- eral officer by subjecting him to county taxes imposed an invalid bur- den on a federal instrumentality (Art. VI). 17. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539 (1842). A Pennsylvania statute (1826) that penalized an owner’s recovery of a runaway slave violated Art. IV, § 2, cl. 3, as well as federal imple- menting legislation. Justices concurring: Story, Catron, McKinley, Taney (separately), C.J., Thomp- son (separately), Baldwin (separately), Wayne (separately), Daniel (separately), McLean (separately) 18. Bronson v. Kinzie, 42 U.S. (1 How.) 311 (1843). An Illinois mortgage moratorium statute that, when applied to a mortgage negotiated prior to its passage, reduced the remedies of the mortgage lender by conferring a new right of redemption upon a de- faulting borrower, impaired an obligation of contract contrary to Art. I, § 10. Justices concurring: Taney, C.J., Baldwin, Wayne, Catron, Daniel Justice dissenting: McLean 19. McCracken v. Hayward, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 608 (1844). An Illinois mortgage moratorium statute that, when applied to a mortgage executed prior to its passage, diminished remedies of the mort- gage lender by prohibiting consummation of a foreclosure unless the foreclosure price equaled two-thirds of the value of the mortgaged prop- erty, impaired the lender’s obligation of contract contrary to Art. I, § 10. 20. Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 133 (1845). As to stockholders of Maryland state banks afforded an exemp- tion under prior act of 1821, Maryland statute of 1841 taxing these stockholders impaired the obligation of contract. STATE LAWS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL 2323 21. Planters’ Bank v. Sharp, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 301 (1848). A Mississippi statute that nullified the power of a bank under a previously issued charter to discount bills of exchange and promissory notes and to institute actions for collection of the same was void be- cause it impaired an obligation of contract, in violation of Art. I, § 10.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2020Usdaexplanatory Notes –Agricultural Marketing Service
    2020 USDA EXPLANATORY NOTES – AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE Agency-Wide ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose Statement.....................................................................................................................................................3 Available Funds and Staff Years ............................................................................................................................ 11 Permanent Positions by Grade and Staff Years ...................................................................................................... 13 Vehicle Fleet ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Shared Funding Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Account 1: Marketing Services ................................................................................................................................... 17 Appropriations Language........................................................................................................................................ 17 Lead-Off Tabular Statement ................................................................................................................................... 17 Project Statement
    [Show full text]
  • State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Municipal Ordinances Held Unconstitutional Or Held to Be Preempted by Federal Law (1789–2002)
    STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW (1789–2002) 2161 VerDate Aug<04>2004 12:57 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 077500 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 8221 Sfmt 8221 C:\CONAN\CON064.SGM PRFM99 PsN: CON064 VerDate Aug<04>2004 12:57 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 077500 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 8221 Sfmt 8221 C:\CONAN\CON064.SGM PRFM99 PsN: CON064 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PRO- VISIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PRE- EMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW Three separate lists of Supreme Court decisions appear below: part I lists cases holding state constitutional or statutory provisions unconstitu- tional, part II lists cases holding local laws unconstitutional, and part III lists cases holding that state or local laws are preempted by federal law. Each case is briefly summarized, and the votes of Justices are indicated un- less the Court’s decision was unanimous. Previous editions contained only two lists, one for cases holding state laws unconstitutional or preempted by federal law, and one for unconstitutional or preempted local laws. The 2002 edition adds the third category because of the different nature of preemption cases. State or local laws held to be preempted by federal law are void not due to repugnancy with any provision of the Constitution, but rather due to conflict with a federal statute or treaty, and through operation of the Su- premacy Clause. Preemption cases formerly listed in one of the first two cat- egories have been moved to the third. A few cases with multiple holdings are listed in more than one category.
    [Show full text]
  • State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions and Municipal Ordinances Held Unconstitutional Or Held to Be Preempted by Federal Law
    STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW 2377 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVI- SIONS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES HELD UN- CONSTITUTIONAL OR HELD TO BE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW Three separate lists of Supreme Court decisions appear below: part I lists cases holding state constitutional or statutory provisions unconstitu- tional, part II lists cases holding local laws unconstitutional, and part III lists cases holding that state or local laws are preempted by federal law. As Congress acted as the legislature for the District of Columbia until passage of the Home Rule Act on December 24, 1973, District of Columbia statutes that were enacted by Congress are treated as federal statutes (and included in a prior appendix), and District of Columbia statutes en- acted by the District of Columbia government are treated as state stat- utes. Each case is briefly summarized, and the votes of Justices are indi- cated unless the Court’s decision was unanimous. Justices who write or join the majority or plurality opinion are listed under “Justices concur- ring”, whether or not they write separate concurring opinions, and Jus- tices who do not join the majority or plurality opinion, but write separate opinions concurring in the result, are listed under “Justices specially con- curring.” Previous editions contained only two lists, one for cases holding state laws unconstitutional or preempted by federal law, and one for unconsti- tutional or preempted local laws. The 2002 edition added the third cat- egory because of the different nature of preemption cases. State or local laws held to be preempted by federal law are void not because they con- travene any provision of the Constitution, but rather because they conflict with a federal statute or treaty, and through operation of the Supremacy Clause.
    [Show full text]
  • Monetary Mechanics: a Financial View
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Tymoigne, Éric Working Paper Monetary mechanics: A financial view Working Paper, No. 799 Provided in Cooperation with: Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Suggested Citation: Tymoigne, Éric (2014) : Monetary mechanics: A financial view, Working Paper, No. 799, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/110023 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Working Paper No. 799 Monetary Mechanics: A Financial View by Éric Tymoigne* Levy Economics Institute of Bard College May 2014 * Correspondence: [email protected]. The author thanks John F. Henry, Charles A.E. Goodhart, Yan Liang, Perry Mehrling, and L.
    [Show full text]
  • 126613667.23.Pdf
    -44^ Scs.iHi. IS6. SCOTTISH HISTORY SOCIETY FOURTH SERIES VOLUME 20 A Scottish firm in Virginia IV. Cuninghame and Co. A Scottish firm in Virginia 1767-1777 IV. Cuninghame and Co. edited by T. M. Devine, ph.d. ★ ★ EDINBURGH printed for the Scottish History Society by CLARK CONSTABLE (1982) LTD 1984 © Scottish History Society 1984 ISBN o 906245 04 4 Printed in Great Britain L/j PREFACE My primary debt of gratitude is to Lady Catherine Henderson and her son, Mr Martin Henderson of Mosdale, Castle Douglas, Kirkcudbright, the owners of the Cuninghame letterbooks, for permission to allow their publication. I thank them also for their willingness to make the material available to me for study and transcription. Mr Richard Dell of the Strathclyde Regional Archives and Mr John Bates and Dr Frances Shaw of the Scottish Record Office helped in the transfer and supervision of the letterbooks when they were being transcribed and edited. I am particularly grateful to Dr Shaw who first drew my attention to the existence of a third Cuninghame letterbook in the care of Lady Henderson and her son. Professor Jacob M. Price of the University of Michigan kindly read and commented on my introduction. I am pleased to record my thanks also to my former student. Miss Elizabeth Gray, who assisted in the preparation of the material and to Miss Mary McHugh who helped with the index. Mrs J. Struthers transformed a difficult manuscript into typescript with speed and efficiency. My final debt is to Dr Thomas I. Rae for his patient attention and advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 105 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 105 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 144 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1998 No. 75 Senate The Senate met at 9:45 a.m. and was mittee substitute. Assuming cloture think that is why the majority leader called to order by the President pro fails, the Senate will continue debate was happy to say he will allow the tempore [Mr. THURMOND]. on the tobacco bill. The Senate may Democrats to have sort of a sub- also consider any other legislative or stantive amendment of their own PRAYER executive items that may be cleared choosing, and then we can proceed for- The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John for action. Therefore, rollcall votes are ward. But we can work this out. I just Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: possible throughout today's session of wanted to make sure at least that was Almighty God, our purpose is to glo- the Senate. on the record at this time. rify You by serving our Nation. We Several Senators addressed the Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, want to express an energetic earnest- Chair. I don't suspect that will be a problem. ness about our work today. Help us to The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ROB- We are going to check with the chair- know what You want and then want ERTS). The Senator from Massachusetts man and try and accommodate. what we know; to say what we mean, is recognized. f and mean what we say.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the American Economy, 11Th Edition, and Are Available to Qualified Instructors Through the Web Site (
    History of the American Economy This page intentionally left blank History of the American Economy ELEVENTH EDITION GARY M. WALTON University of California, Davis HUGH ROCKOFF Rutgers University History of the American Economy: © 2010, 2005 South-Western, Cengage Learning Eleventh Edition Gary M. Walton and Hugh Rockoff ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any Vice President of Editorial, Business: means—graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, Jack W. Calhoun recording, taping, Web distribution, information storage and retrieval Acquisitions Editor: Steven Scoble systems, or in any other manner—except as may be permitted by the Managing Developmental Editor: license terms herein. Katie Yanos For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Marketing Specialist: Betty Jung Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706 Marketing Coordinator: Suellen Ruttkay For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all Content Project Manager: Darrell E. Frye requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions Frontlist Buyer, Manufacturing: Further permissions questions can be emailed to Sandee Milewski [email protected] Production Service: Cadmus Package ISBN-13: 978-0-324-78662-0 Sr. Art Director: Michelle Kunkler Package ISBN-10: 0-324-78662-X Internal Designer: Juli Cook Book only ISBN 13: 978-0324-78661-3 Cover Designer: Rose Alcorn Book only ISBN 10: 0-324-78661-1 Cover Images: © Ross Elmi/iStockphoto; South-Western, Cengage Learning © Thinkstock Images 5191 Natorp Boulevard Mason, OH 45040 USA Cengage learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Tymoigne, Eric
    Monetary Mechanics: A Financial View Eric Tymoigne Assistant Professor of Economics Lewis & Clark College Economics Department, MSC 40 0615 SW Palatine Hill Rd. Portland, OR 97219 USA [email protected] 1 A financial analysis of monetary systems1 Introduction The functional analysis of monetary systems is currently the most popular among academics of all disciplines—“money is what money does” (Walker 1878; Hicks 1967; Dalton 1965; Kemp 1956). It is used in a narrow way by most economists who focus on the function of medium of exchange. In order to avoid the problem of double coincidence of wants, a unique commodity was progressively sorted out as best for market exchanges (Jevons 1875; Menger 1892).2 Thus, a monetary system can be detected by checking for the presence of a medium of exchange, which usually implies searching for objects passing hands frequently. Einzig (1966) and Quiggin (1949) reject this narrow functional approach. Exchange was not done principally, or even at all, for economic reasons and so the nonexistence of a double coincidence of wants was not a problem. The broad functional approach classifies anything as monetary instrument as long as it performs all or parts of the functions attributed to monetary instruments. The distinction between “all-purpose money” and “special-purpose money” follows (Polanyi 1957). A main issue with the functional approach is that it does not explicitly define what “money” is. This leads either to select one main function, or to pick and choose depending on the circumstances. This may lead the inquirer to impose inappropriately his own experience to explain the inner workings of completely different societies (Dalton 1965).
    [Show full text]
  • Working Fictions of Money: the Making of Currency (Dis)Trust in Argentina (1880-2020)
    Working fictions of money: the making of currency (dis)trust in Argentina (1880-2020) Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität zu Köln 2020 presented by Guadalupe Moreno from General Roca, Río Negro, Argentina First reviewer: Prof. Dr. Jens Beckert Second reviewer: Prof. Dr. Pablo Nemiña Date of oral defense: 18.11.2020 To my father Jaime and my sister Florencia, without whose unconditional love and constant support this thesis would not exist. To the living memory of my mother Adriana. To all those who have themselves gone through a monetary crisis, in the hope that this work contributes to alleviating their misfortune. Table of contents Acknowledgments vii 1. Introduction 1 2. What is money, and why do we trust it? 6 What is trust? 7 What is distrust? 15 Money and trust 17 Money and trust within mainstream economics 18 Sociopolitical approaches to money and trust 28 Money and trust within sociology and anthropology 36 Trust and the working fictions of money 45 (Dis)believing money: the logics of distrust 53 3. Reshaping value: the transformation of money during the 20th century 58 The value of money from the gold standard to Bretton Woods (1875-1944) 62 The Bretton Woods agreements and the US dollar supremacy (1936-1960) 66 The fall of the Bretton Woods international monetary system (1960-1973) 72 The international monetary system after Bretton Woods (1973-2020) 75 The monetary reality in Latin America after Bretton Woods (1973-2000) 83 4. One hundred
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Statuttory Preemption of State and Local Authority: History
    ~~ A COMMISSION REPORT Federal Statutory Preemption of State and Local Authority: History, Inventory, and Issues U.S. Advisory Commission on A-121 Intergovernment a1 Relations September 199: US. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 800 K Street, NW South Building Suite 450 Washington, DC 20575 (202) 653-5640 FAX (202) 653-5429 ii U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Preemption refers to the authority of the Congress Dual Sovereignty. There are three types of dual sovereignty: under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution to (2) State powers not subject to preemption-including enact statutes that displace or replace state and/or local the power of states to levy taxes and to enter into laws and powers. The Congress' power to preempt, how- nonpolitical interstate compacts; ever, is limited to the fields of authority delegated to it (2) Direct andpositive conflict between state andfederal (e.g., bankruptcy) by the people of the states through the laws-a state law is valid unless there is a conflict U.S. Constitution. with a federal law on the same subject (e.g., Civil Preemption may entail (1) federal displacement of state Rights Act of 1964); and and/or local law so as to prohibit state or local governments from exercising particular powers (e.g., a prohibition of state (3) Administrative or judicial rulings precluding pre- or local regulation of an economicactivityderegulated by the emption-for example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its amendments provide for either an Congress), (2) federal replacement of a state and/or locallaw administrative ruling by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 6–12–00 Vol. 65 No. 113 Monday June 12, 2000 Pages 36781–37004
    6±12±00 Monday Vol. 65 No. 113 June 12, 2000 Pages 36781±37004 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:44 Jun 09, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\12JNWS.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 12JNWS 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday through SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, PUBLIC Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Subscriptions: Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of Paper or fiche 202±512±1800 the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent of Assistance with public subscriptions 512±1806 Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official edition. General online information 202±512±1530; 1±888±293±6498 Single copies/back copies: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Paper or fiche 512±1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 512±1803 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 523±5243 Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 523±5243 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Economic Approaches
    Chapter 6 Economic Approaches Introduction 295 Supply of Tobacco and Tobacco Products 295 Tobacco Price Supports 298 Minimum Prices, Nonrecourse Loans, and Quotas 300 Effects of Price Supports on Market Prices 300 Assessments to Offset Federal Costs of Price Supports 301 Discussion 302 Evolution of the U.S. Cigarette Industry 306 Economic Implications of Concentrated Tobacco Production 308 High Tobacco Concentration and the Impact of Prevention Policies 308 Discussion 311 Trade Policy, Tobacco, and Tobacco Products 311 Past Tobacco-Related Trade Policy 312 Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 312 Multinational Trade Agreements 316 Discussion and Recent Developments 318 Economic Impact of the U.S. Tobacco Industry 320 Effect of Price on Demand for Tobacco Products 322 Studies Using Aggregate Data 323 Studies Using Individual-Level Data 327 Behavioral Economics Studies of Cigarette Demand 335 Studies of Smokeless Tobacco Use and Price 335 Cigarette Prices and Other Substance Use 336 Discussion 337 Taxation of Tobacco Products 337 Rationales for Tobacco Taxation 338 Historical or Comparative Standard 338 Cigarette Taxes and Cigarette Prices 341 International Tobacco Taxes 345 Discussion 350 Fairness Standard and Optimal Cigarette Taxes 350 Equity, Incidence, and Distribution of the Tobacco Tax Burden 350 Estimates of the Costs of Smoking 352 Theoretically Optimal Cigarette Taxes 353 Cigarette Taxes and Health 355 Tobacco Taxation and Revenues 357 Conclusions 359 References 360 Surgeon General's Report 294 Chapter 6 Reducing Tobacco Use Introduction This chapter reviews recent research on economic economic impact of tobacco on the U.S. economy and aspects of tobacco production and the use of tobacco its implications for policy are described.
    [Show full text]