DOCSLIB.ORG

Why the UCC Should Not Subordinate Itself to Federal Authority

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why the UCC Should Not Subordinate Itself to Federal Authority Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 1994 Why the U.C.C. Should Not Subordinate Itself to Federal Authority: Imperfect Uniformity, Improper Delegation and Revised Section 3-102(c) Norman I. Silber Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Norman I. Silber, Why the U.C.C. Should Not Subordinate Itself to Federal Authority: Imperfect Uniformity, Improper Delegation and Revised Section 3-102(c), 55 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 441 (1994) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/534 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHY THE U.C.C. SHOULD NOT SUBORDINATE ITSELF TO FEDERAL AUTHORITY: IMPERFECT UNIFORMITY, IMPROPER DELEGATION AND REVISED SECTION 3-102(c) Norman Silber* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction: The Conflict over Federalization of the C ode ............................................ 442 II. Background: The Preemption and Displacement of State L aws ............................................ 446 A. Distinguishing Preemption from Displacement .... 447 1. Preemption by Valid Regulatory Authority .. 447 2. Displacement of State Law by the Operation of State Law ............................ 450 B. The Diminished State Role in Banking Law ...... 451 III. Context: The Virtues of the Code's Imperfect Uniformity 454 IV. Other Models Within the Code: Embedded Relationships of the Code to Federal Law ........................ 460 A. Section 4-103: Containing Federal Administrative R ules ....................................... 461 B. Section 7-103: Conceding Federal Administrative Displacem ent ................................ 469 V. Puzzle: Evaluating the Meaning of Section 3-102(c) ... 471 A. Negotiable Instruments Law as State Law ....... 471 * Associate Professor, Hofstra Law School; Ph.D., Yale University, 1978; J.D., Columbia University, 1986. Many thanks for helpful comment are extended to Alex Aleinikoff, Thomas Baxter, Robin Charlow, Neil Cohen, Carl Felsenfeld, Linda Galler, Gail Hillebrand, Larry Kessler, Eric Lane, Malachy Mahon, Fred Miller, Deborah Prutzman, Alan Resnick, Wendy Rogovin, Ed Rubin, Ron Silverman, Jeff Sovern, Robert Williams and Julianna Zekan. Luke Bergstrom, David Jaffe and the staff of the University of Pittsburgh Law Review provided thoughtful assistance. A special debt of gratitude is due to Dwight L. Greene, a departed friend and colleague. Dwight kindled my curiosity about the problems explored here and helped me to evaluate their importance. Support from Hofstra made possible the valuable research assistance of Kevin Buggy, Alex- ander Fear, Andrew Gould, Scott Greissman, Eileen Lehmann, Jennifer Lyon, and Christopher Maurer. Cast all blame for shortcomings on me. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:441 B. The Provision Itself ........................... 473 C. The Official Comments ........................ 475 VI. Mischief: Potentially Adverse Consequences of the Revi- sion ............................................. 480 A. Unwarranted Preemption: Freezing "Opt-In" Provi- sions of States ............................... 481 B. Unwarranted Displacement: Invalidating Nonuniform U.C.C. Amendments ............... 485 C. Unwarranted Extensions: Taking Analysis of Sec- tion 3-102 Outside Article 3 ................... 490 VII. Dimensions of State Law Unconstitutionality: Nondelega- tion D octrine ..................................... 491 A. Constitutional Restrictions on Delegation by State Lawm akers .................................. 493 B. Delegation as a Matter of Policy ............... 497 VIII. Conclusions: Toward Reinforcing the Structural Integrity of the Code ...................................... 498 I. INTRODUCTION: THE CONFLICT OVER FEDERALIZATION OF THE CODE A knot of controversy over the merits of federalizing nonregu- latory state banking laws by preempting or otherwise displacing them has gathered in an area where state authority to govern commercial law commonly has been taken for granted. The problems pervade re- cent revisions to the state uniform law provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code ("U.C.C." or "Code"), 1 which are in- tended to codify the law of negotiable instruments, and the laws gov- erning bank collections and payment. The proposed adoption of these changes by the states has raised questions about the proper scope of uniform laws and the extent to which state laws should endorse defer- ence to federal regulatory authority. The implications of these revisions extend beyond abstract concerns about the coherence of the Code when I. The history of the process of revising Articles 3 and 4 has been recounted elsewhere. See, e.g., Fred H. Miller, U.C.C. Articles 3, 4 and 4A: A Study in Process and Scope, 42 ALA. L. REv. 405 (1991); Kathleen Patchel, Interest Group Politics, Federalism, and the Uniform Laws Pro- cess: Some Lessons from the Uniform Commercial Code, 78 MiNN. L. REv. 83 (1993). Article 4A, Funds Transfers, emerged from the drafting process as a separate product, concerned with nonconsumer electronic funds transfers. Developed apart from Articles 3 and 4, 4A has been approved widely without the difficulties in adoption that have troubled revised Articles 3 and 4-at least in part because of 4A's limited scope. See generally Carl Felsenfeld, But The Pro- posed Uniform [?] Commercial Code Was Adopted, 26 LoY. LA. L. REV. 597 (1993). 1994] THE U.C.C. AND FEDERAL AUTHORITY they are considered together with concerns about the demise of federal- ism in banking and the -adequate representation of interests in federal and state rule-making processes. Most law students in their first year of law school learn that after the reversal of Swift v. Tyson2 by Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkinss in 1938, the substantive common law of commercial transactions became the province of state law rather than federal adjudication. The law of negotiable instruments has evolved since then through a series of uni- form law enactments into Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Until recently, the Code has reserved for the states the principal legis- lative and judicial role. Recent events indicate that a part of negotiable instruments law is being removed from state hands. In particular, in the area of check collections, Congress has deprived states of part of their authority. In 1987, Congress, through the Expedited Funds Availability Act ("EFAA"), delegated to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors "the responsibility to regulate ...any aspect of the payment system, in- cluding the receipt, payment, collection, or clearing of checks."' The Federal Reserve Board responded by issuing Regulation "CC," which preempted a considerable part of Article 4, dealing with bank collections. 5 The preemption of much of Article 4 by the EFAA and Regula- tion CC posed a new problem for the drafters, who were then in the midst of revising Article 4. Should the Revised Article seek to preserve the unpreempted portions of Article 4, or should it allow the Federal Reserve Board to preempt these areas as well? By 1990, the premature demise of much of Revised Article 4 provoked new proposals to coordi- nate Article 4 with Federal Reserve Board regulations, and also gener- ated a scholarly debate about the proper justification for ceding major areas of uniform law to federal regulatory agencies. 6 2. 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1 (1842). 3. 304 U.S. 64 (1938). 4. Expedited Funds Availability Act, 12 U.S.C.A. § 4008(c)(1)(A) (West 1989). 5. Fed. Reserve Reg. CC, Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks, 12 C.F.R. § 229 (1993); see Edward L. Rubin, Efficiency, Equity and the Proposed Revision of Articles 3 and 4, 42 ALA. L. REv. 551, 559 (1991). The portions preempted by Regulation CC primarily concerned the check return process. Id. 6. Complete preemption was not a proposal that the banking industry favored. See Miller, supra note 1, at 423-24; Edward L. Rubin, Uniformity, Regulation, and the Federalizationof State Law: Some Lessons From the Payment System, 49 Omo ST. L.J. 1251, 1257-61 (1989). As of this writing it is not clear how much of Article 4 ultimately may become a dead letter, nor whether the acts of Congress and the Federal Reserve Board amounted to the equivalent of man- 444 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:441 With respect to Revised Article 3, the debate over the Code revi- sions has yet to explore what appears to be one small step backward for federalism and a move forward for federalization-the insertion of a scope provision, section 3-102, which endorses the preemption and re- quires the displacement of state law.7 The language of that provision expands the opportunities for Federal rulemaking authority to defeat otherwise enforceable provisions of Article 3 and to defeat interpreta- tions of those uniform law provisions that have been adopted by state legislative bodies and settled by state courts. Originally titled "Commercial Paper" but now limited in scope to "Negotiable Instruments," 8 the new Article 3 incorporates a deferen- tial approach to the expansion of federal control. Section 3-102(c) states that "[riegulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Re- serve
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Discretion and the Reserve Powers of the Crown
    Discretion and the Reserve Powers of the Crown Peter H. Russell The decision of Governor General Michaëlle Jean to grant prorogation when requested by Prime Minister Harper in 2008 and 2009 led to considerable debate among students of Parliament as to the discretionary power of a governor general to reject advice of a prime minister. This article agrees with those who believe that Mme Jean did not err in acting on those specific requests but rejects the idea that it would violate constitutional convention for a governor general to ever refuse such a request from a prime minister. It further argues that in the Westminster system the monarch or her representative, in exercising any of the Crown’s legal powers in relation to Parliament, retains the right to reject a prime minister’s advice if following that advice would be highly detrimental to parliamentary democracy. That rationale applies equally to prorogation and to dissolution. recent article by Nicholas MacDonald and scholars, that “in this democratic age, the head of state James Bowden1 quite rightly stressed that or her representative should reject a prime minister’s Ain the democratic age the reserve powers advice only when doing so is necessary to protect of the Crown should be rarely used. They say that parliamentary democracy.” Those words of mine are “most scholars” agree that it is only under the “most quoted, with what I take to be approval, by MacDonald exceptional circumstances” that the governor general and Bowden in their article. The justification for the may reject the prime minister’s advice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intermittent Sovereign
    THE INTERMITTENT SOVEREIGN I MAX RADIN It is impossible to escape from Austin, or rather from Aristotle, for the whole history of Western civilization is saturated with the concept of the state or community as composed of one part which gives commands and another which obeys them. Few people have held that all states were in fact so organized or that the existing states were developed in order to effectuate this concept. But most of those who have seriously thought about state organization have thought about it in these terms and a good deal of our state machinery has been formed under the influence of people who were trained to think so. And again since Aristotle, a favorite way of classifying states has been on a quantitative basis in respect of those who issued commands. This power might be wielded by one person or a few persons or a great many persons and the state was in con- sequence a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a democracy. Plainly that is not the only way in which classification might be made. Instead of how many wielded this power, we might first of all ask what kind of persons, where they came from, and how they were selected. Or we might have in mind the purposes for which the power was exercised. All these classifications have in fact been used to some extent at different times. But however classified, the prevailing idea has nearly always been that the state is based on authority, that .its essential characteristic is the fact that, somewhere, some place, there are people who give orders and others who obey them.
    [Show full text]
  • The English Constitution: Walter Bagehot
    The English Constitution: Walter Bagehot MILES TAYLOR Editor OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS ’ THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION W B was born in Langport, Somerset, in , the son of a banker. After taking BA and MA degrees from University College London he studied for the bar, and was called in . However, he decided to return home and join his father’s bank, devoting his leisure to contributing literary, historical and political reviews to the leading periodicals of the s. In he returned to London, succeeding his father-in-law as editor and director of the Economist. Three books ensured Bagehot’s reputation as one of the most distinguished and influential Victorian men-of-letters: The English Constitution (), published at the height of the debate over parliamentary reform; Physics and Politics (), his application of Darwinian ideas to political science; and Lombard Street (), a study of the City of London. Walter Bagehot died in . M T is a Lecturer in Modern History at King’s College, London. He is the author of The Decline of British Radicalism, – (Clarendon Press, ) and is currently completing a biography of the last Chartist leader, Ernest Jones. ’ For almost years Oxford World’s Classics have brought readers closer to the world’s great literature. Now with over titles–– from the ,-year-old myths of Mesopotamia to the twentieth century’s greatest novels–– the series makes available lesser-known as well as celebrated writing. The pocket-sized hardbacks of the early years contained introductions by Virginia Woolf, T. S. Eliot, Graham Greene, and other literary figures which enriched the experience of reading.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Right to Refuse Cabinet Advice As a Democratic Reform1 Tyler
    1 The Right to Refuse Cabinet Advice as a Democratic Reform1 Tyler Chamberlain Trinity Western University, Langley BC [email protected] Prepared for delivery at the 2018 Canadian Political Science Association Conference in Regina, SK This is a draft. Please do not cite without permission of the author. 1 Note: This is a slightly different title than that in the 2018 CPSA program. 2 Abstract Recent years have seen a rise in interest and concern over the centralization of power in the Canadian Prime Minister’s Office. Politicians, journalists, and academics alike have decried the “elected” or “friendly” dictatorship into which the office of First Minister has transformed. This paper will review several of the solutions on offer before proposing and defending an alternative solution, namely strengthening the Crown’s right to refuse advice of First Ministers, under particular circumstances. This solution will be presented via the Constitutional Traditionalism of Eugene Forsey and John Farthing, two Canadian political thinkers whose arguments have been, I suggest, vindicated by recent experience. The final section will reflect on, and hopefully clarify, the tension between strengthening the power of unelected Governors General and the project of democratic reform. It will do this by reviewing some of the relevant literature on the potential conflict between the logic of electoral competition and the logic of good governance, including, but not limited to the work of Fukuyama (2014), Zakaria (1997, 2007), and Achen & Bartels (2016). I will conclude by suggesting that a proper conception of democratic reform in a Westminster system must not be reduced to merely increasing voter input, but must balance responsiveness to voters with the ability of the House of Commons to hold the Prime Minister and Cabinet to account.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 14 Federalism-E
    Volume 14 Federalism-e Canada’s Constitutional Monarchy VERONIKA REICHERT Canadian institution.”2 Does the monarchy play University of Alberta an important, positive role in Canada today? Those who would answer “no” to its importance or its being positive have argued Anytime a royal makes an appearance at that we should abolish the Crown in Canada. an event, great public interest in royalty is However, by looking at the constitutional generated, and with that the monarchy as an structures of Canadian institutions, the design institution is brought to the attention of of our federalist democracy, and aspects of the Canadians and the Commonwealth. There is a Canadian identity, I will show that the popular opinion that the monarchy no longer monarchy does play an important, and positive, plays, and should no longer play, an important role in contemporary Canada. Further, the role in contemporary Canada, and with that a criticisms of the monarchy would be better view that the monarchy is a useless addressed through reform of the role of the appropriation of tradition, or even a harmful Crown, in terms of preserving the important symbol of oppression, the latter view taken by function the monarchy plays as well as being a Marc Chevrier who writes that “the Canadian much more accomplishable task. neomonarchy feeds illusions of false grandeur that have no meaning in America and distract One argument against the monarchy is the people from thinking that they can be that it is viewed as an archaic institution, and sovereign.”1 Others, however, see the thus it should have no place in today’s world, monarchy as an important part of modern and especially not in a federalist democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dynamic of Intergovernmental Relations in Canada and Australia
    Alternate Routes: The Dynamic of Intergovernmental Relations in Canada and Australia by Emmet Collins A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Political Studies University of Manitoba Winnipeg Copyright © 2011 Emmet Collins Abstract This Master’s Thesis compares the dynamics of intergovernmental relations (IGR) in Canada and Australia. In particular, the study explores how two such similar countries have developed such distinct sets of intergovernmental institutions. In Australia, the Commonwealth has increasingly dominated IGR since the 1930s, a process which culminated with the creation of the Council of Australian Government, a “vertical” (Commonwealth-state) institution. In Canada, federal-provincial-territorial relations have been far less institutionalized. Instead, “horizontal” (provincial-territorial) relations have evolved slowly into the Council of the Federation, the most regularized forum for IGR in Canadian history. By examining the historical development of federalism more generally and IGR specifically, this study uncovers a mutually- reinforcing relationship between centralization and the verticality of IGR in Australia, and a corresponding bond between decentralization and horizontality in Canada. Based on original interviews with key intergovernmental officials in each country, the study attributes these relationships to a number of factors, including the presence of multi-nationalism, the strength of intrastate federalism, the nature of judicial interpretation, the structure of fiscal federalism, and the personal style of political figures. The thesis concludes that verticality in Canada and horizontality in Australia are functions of the same factors which made one decentralized and the other centralized, and that institutions of IGR are both cause and effect of the prevailing dynamic in either federation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Imbalance
    Volume 37 Issue 1 Winter Winter 2007 The Constitutional Imbalance Richard Albert Recommended Citation Richard Albert, The Constitutional Imbalance, 37 N.M. L. Rev. 1 (2007). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol37/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The University of New Mexico School of Law. For more information, please visit the New Mexico Law Review website: www.lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMBALANCE RICHARD ALBERT* I. INTRODUCTION The modem American judiciary bears little resemblance to the institution created by the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Alexander Hamilton-a leading spokesperson for the Federalist forces that emerged victorious from the founding debates-famously predicted that thejudiciary would be the least dangerous of the three branches of government. We know now that Hamilton and the Federalists were wrong on this forecast. We also know that the Anti-Federalists were right. Indeed, the Anti-Federalists-an influential group of American founding statesmen who withheld their assent from the Constitution for various reasons - correctly presaged the future path of the American judiciary. Contemporary thinkers have echoed the cautionary words of the Anti-Federalists, arguing that the modern American judiciary has upset the constitutional balance that sustains the American project of democracy. According to one scholar, the judiciary has freely inserted itself into the political thicket, eroding the political question doctrine that once ensured that the voice of the people would be heard.2 According to another scholar, the judiciary has mooted popular discourse on important issues of conscience before those deliberations have even begun to bud.3 Still another argues that the judiciary has commandeered public institutions to substitute the people's judgment with its own.4 These and other increasingly frequent detours * J.D., B.A., Yale University.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of Popular Sovereignty
    Michigan Law Review Volume 17 Issue 3 1919 Theory of Popular Sovereignty Harold J. Laski Harvard University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Law and Society Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons Recommended Citation Harold J. Laski, Theory of Popular Sovereignty, 17 MICH. L. REV. 201 (1919). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol17/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Vor.. XVII. JANUARY, 1919 No. 3 THE THEORY OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY I LEXIS de Tocqueville has wisely insisted upon the natural A tendency of men to confound institutions that are necessary with institutions to which they have grown accustomed.1 It is a truth more general in its application than he perhaps imagined. Certainly the student of political and legal ideas will in each age be compelled to examine theories which are called essential even when their original substance has, under pressure of new circumstance, passed into some allotropic form. Anyone, for instance, who analy­ ses the modern theory of consideration will be convinced that, while judges do homage to an ancient content, they do not hesitate to invest it with new meaning. The social contract is no longer in high place; but those who bow the knee to the fashionable hypothesis of social solidarity half-consciously offers it its old-time worship.2 Of the general theory of sovereignty a similar truth may be as­ serted.
    [Show full text]
  • From Unwritten to Written: Transformation in the British Common-Law Constitution
    From Unwritten to Written: Transformation in the British Common-Law Constitution David Jenkins* ABSTRACT This Article posits that the British Constitution is changing by incorporating written principles that restrain Parliament through judicial review. The Author asserts that this constitutional model has basis in the common law and the orthodox theories of Blackstone and Dicey. In addition, the ultra vires doctrine supports the model and provides a basis for judicial review of Parliament. As constitutions may accommodate written and unwritten elements of law, as well as various means of enforcement and change, the Author posits that constitutions are defined by how strongly they reflect underlying legal norms. With a shift in the rule of recognition endorsing judicial review, this expressive function of constitutions democratically legitimizes constitutional texts as positivist expressions of popular will that bind Parliament. Therefore, courts may constitutionalize statutes or treaties coming over time to represent shifting norms through common- law adjudication. Furthermore, the Author illustrates that such a “quasi-written,” common-law constitution is already emerging in the United Kingdom by examining cases based upon the Human Rights Act and the European Communities Act. ________________________________________________________________ * Attorney at Law (W. Va., Ohio); M.A. (Hist.); M.A. (Pol. Sci); LL.M.; D.C.L. Candidate, McGill University Institute of Comparative Law. This Article was originally written as a thesis in requirement for the LL.M. degree of McGill University. I am grateful to Professor Patrick Glenn for his supervision and guidance. 863 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1945689 864 VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 36:863 TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
    [Show full text]
  • Patriation of the Canadian Constitution: Comparative Federalism in a New Context
    Washington Law Review Volume 60 Number 3 6-1-1985 Patriation of the Canadian Constitution: Comparative Federalism in a New Context William C. Hodge Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation William C. Hodge, Patriation of the Canadian Constitution: Comparative Federalism in a New Context, 60 Wash. L. Rev. 585 (1985). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol60/iss3/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PATRIATION OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION: COMPARATIVE FEDERALISM IN A NEW CONTEXT William C. Hodge* INTRODUCTION What races will survive World War III? The Chinese and the Qu6bcois. The Chinese because there are so many of them, and the Qu6b6cois because if they've survived the last four hundred years, they'll survive anything. Qu6bec is that part of North America that is so distinct from the rest, and against such odds, that it takes pride in serving to define what a nation is- and can be. -JOEL GARREAU' The Canadian constitution, also known as the British North America Act, 1867,2 has been "patriated." Of that bundle of sticks that, fastened together, constitute sovereign autonomy, a significant few continued to rest with the British Parliament until 1982-a condition the Canadians found humiliating and the British embarrassing.
    [Show full text]
  • State Courts As Agents of Federalism: Power and Interpretation in State Constitutional Law
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2002 State Courts as Agents of Federalism: Power and Interpretation in State Constitutional Law James A. Gardner University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation James A. Gardner, State Courts as Agents of Federalism: Power and Interpretation in State Constitutional Law, 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1725 (2002). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/206 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STATE COURTS AS AGENTS OF FEDERALISM: POWER AND INTERPRETATION IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW JAMES A. GARDNER* ABSTRACT In the American constitutionaltradition, federalism is commonly understood as a mechanism designed to institutionalize a kind of permanent struggle between state and national power. The same American constitutional tradition also holds that courts are basically passive institutions whose mission is to apply the law impartially while avoiding inherently political power struggles. These two commonplace understandingsconflict on theirface. The conflict may be dissolved for federal courts by conceiving their resistance to state authority as the impartial consequence of limi- tations on state power imposed by the United States Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • By Anne Twomey∗ Introduction in Australia, the Scope of the Reserve
    THE UNRECOGNISED RESERVE POWERS ∗ by Anne Twomey ∗∗ Introduction In Australia, the scope of the reserve powers has been largely discerned from the examples of their exercise. Much time has been spent raking over the ashes of the experiences of the Lang dismissal in 1932 and the Whitlam dismissal in 1975, with more limited attention being paid to the reserve powers to appoint a Prime Minister or to refuse a dissolution. Reference is sometimes made to the extremely limited exercise of the reserve powers in the United Kingdom and occasionally to Canada, but that is all. Most commentators would deny that there are any other reserve powers beyond those three classic powers and see as mischievous, or even dangerous, any suggestion that there might be other circumstances in which a vice-regal officer could exercise power without advice, or contrary to advice, or refuse to exercise a power as advised. Today, I would like to look at the reserve powers from a different perspective – by identifying the principles that underlie them and how those principles intersect and conflict and support the reserve powers. It seems to me that instead of looking at the reserve powers as isolated and anomalous exceptions from the operation of the Constitution, a preferable approach is to integrate them into the Constitution and identify their scope by reference to established constitutional principles. In doing so, I will be taking a much wider sample of circumstances in which such powers have been exercised as a means of illustrating the principles that underlie them and their possible application. In practice, the reserve powers have been more commonly exercised in former British colonies that are developing countries in Africa, Asia, the South Pacific and the Caribbean, where the likelihood of political instability is greater and constitutional boundaries tend to be pushed.
    [Show full text]