User Tools

Site Tools


documents:external:restoring_rule_of_law

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
documents:external:restoring_rule_of_law [2016/07/27 16:34] Oliver Wolcottdocuments:external:restoring_rule_of_law [2016/07/27 18:27] – [B. Objections to an Article V Convention Lack Merit] Oliver Wolcott
Line 332: Line 332:
  
  
-==== THE PRESIDENT ====+==== II. THE PRESIDENT ====
  
 === A. The Problem === === A. The Problem ===
Line 508: Line 508:
 //FERC v. Mississippi//, 456 U.S. 742, 777-78 (1982) (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted). This facet of the Texas Plan also would harmonize the doctrine of preemption, in which //Geier //always has been somewhat anomalous. For example, the Supreme Court often emphasizes: "//In all pre-emption cases//, and particularly in those in which Congress has 'legislated . . . in a field which the States have traditionally occupied,' . . . we 'start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act  unless that was the  clear and manifest  purpose  of Congress.'" //Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr//, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996) (emphasis added; quoting //Rice// //v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.//, 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)). Given that "all preemption cases" should turn on clear statements from Congress, it makes little sense to  allow administrative agencies to preempt state law without //any //statement from Congress (let alone a clear one).)) //FERC v. Mississippi//, 456 U.S. 742, 777-78 (1982) (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted). This facet of the Texas Plan also would harmonize the doctrine of preemption, in which //Geier //always has been somewhat anomalous. For example, the Supreme Court often emphasizes: "//In all pre-emption cases//, and particularly in those in which Congress has 'legislated . . . in a field which the States have traditionally occupied,' . . . we 'start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act  unless that was the  clear and manifest  purpose  of Congress.'" //Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr//, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996) (emphasis added; quoting //Rice// //v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.//, 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)). Given that "all preemption cases" should turn on clear statements from Congress, it makes little sense to  allow administrative agencies to preempt state law without //any //statement from Congress (let alone a clear one).))
  
-==== THE JUDICIARY ====+==== III. THE JUDICIARY ====
  
 === A. The Problem === === A. The Problem ===
Line 936: Line 936:
  
  
-NOTES \\ +===== END NOTES ===== 
 + 
 + \\ 
 ======================= =======================
documents/external/restoring_rule_of_law.txt · Last modified: 2021/02/23 16:14 by 127.0.0.1