State constitutions: Purpose and function

Temple Law Review

Volumn 69, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 989-1006

  Holland, Randy J ^a  

^a WIDENER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0442321692     PISSN: 08998086     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (214)

1. See generally A.E. DICK HOWARD, THE ROAD FROM RUNNYMEDE: MAGNA CARTA AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AMERICA 203-15 (1968); GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787 (1969); Brevard Crihfield & Frank Smothers, The States in the Federal System, 34 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1018 (1959); Frank P. Grad, The State Constitution: Its Function and Form for Our Time, 54 VA. L. REV. 928 (1968); Thomas C. Grey, Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought, 30 STAN. L. REV. 843 (1978); William F. Swindler, "Rights of Englishmen" Since 1776: Some Anglo-American Notes, 124 U. PA. L. REV. 1083 (1976); Herbert Wechsler, The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government, 54 COLUM. L. REV. 543 (1954).
2. See generally A.E. DICK HOWARD, THE ROAD FROM RUNNYMEDE: MAGNA CARTA AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AMERICA 203-15 (1968); GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787 (1969); Brevard Crihfield & Frank Smothers, The States in the Federal System, 34 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1018 (1959); Frank P. Grad, The State Constitution: Its Function and Form for Our Time, 54 VA. L. REV. 928 (1968); Thomas C. Grey, Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought, 30 STAN. L. REV. 843 (1978); William F. Swindler, "Rights of Englishmen" Since 1776: Some Anglo-American Notes, 124 U. PA. L. REV. 1083 (1976); Herbert Wechsler, The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government, 54 COLUM. L. REV. 543 (1954).
3. See generally A.E. DICK HOWARD, THE ROAD FROM RUNNYMEDE: MAGNA CARTA AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AMERICA 203-15 (1968); GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787 (1969); Brevard Crihfield & Frank Smothers, The States in the Federal System, 34 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1018 (1959); Frank P. Grad, The State Constitution: Its Function and Form for Our Time, 54 VA. L. REV. 928 (1968); Thomas C. Grey, Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought, 30 STAN. L. REV. 843 (1978); William F. Swindler, "Rights of Englishmen" Since 1776: Some Anglo-American Notes, 124 U. PA. L. REV. 1083 (1976); Herbert Wechsler, The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government, 54 COLUM. L. REV. 543 (1954).
4. See generally A.E. DICK HOWARD, THE ROAD FROM RUNNYMEDE: MAGNA CARTA AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AMERICA 203-15 (1968); GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787 (1969); Brevard Crihfield & Frank Smothers, The States in the Federal System, 34 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1018 (1959); Frank P. Grad, The State Constitution: Its Function and Form for Our Time, 54 VA. L. REV. 928 (1968); Thomas C. Grey, Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought, 30 STAN. L. REV. 843 (1978); William F. Swindler, "Rights of Englishmen" Since 1776: Some Anglo-American Notes, 124 U. PA. L. REV. 1083 (1976); Herbert Wechsler, The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government, 54 COLUM. L. REV. 543 (1954).
5. See generally A.E. DICK HOWARD, THE ROAD FROM RUNNYMEDE: MAGNA CARTA AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AMERICA 203-15 (1968); GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787 (1969); Brevard Crihfield & Frank Smothers, The States in the Federal System, 34 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1018 (1959); Frank P. Grad, The State Constitution: Its Function and Form for Our Time, 54 VA. L. REV. 928 (1968); Thomas C. Grey, Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought, 30 STAN. L. REV. 843 (1978); William F. Swindler, "Rights of Englishmen" Since 1776: Some Anglo-American Notes, 124 U. PA. L. REV. 1083 (1976); Herbert Wechsler, The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government, 54 COLUM. L. REV. 543 (1954).
6. See generally A.E. DICK HOWARD, THE ROAD FROM RUNNYMEDE: MAGNA CARTA AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AMERICA 203-15 (1968); GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787 (1969); Brevard Crihfield & Frank Smothers, The States in the Federal System, 34 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1018 (1959); Frank P. Grad, The State Constitution: Its Function and Form for Our Time, 54 VA. L. REV. 928 (1968); Thomas C. Grey, Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought, 30 STAN. L. REV. 843 (1978); William F. Swindler, "Rights of Englishmen" Since 1776: Some Anglo-American Notes, 124 U. PA. L. REV. 1083 (1976); Herbert Wechsler, The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government, 54 COLUM. L. REV. 543 (1954).
7. See generally A.E. DICK HOWARD, THE ROAD FROM RUNNYMEDE: MAGNA CARTA AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AMERICA 203-15 (1968); GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787 (1969); Brevard Crihfield & Frank Smothers, The States in the Federal System, 34 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1018 (1959); Frank P. Grad, The State Constitution: Its Function and Form for Our Time, 54 VA. L. REV. 928 (1968); Thomas C. Grey, Origins of the Unwritten Constitution: Fundamental Law in American Revolutionary Thought, 30 STAN. L. REV. 843 (1978); William F. Swindler, "Rights of Englishmen" Since 1776: Some Anglo-American Notes, 124 U. PA. L. REV. 1083 (1976); Herbert Wechsler, The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government, 54 COLUM. L. REV. 543 (1954).
8. WOOD, supra note 1, at 131-32.
9. Robert F. Williams, State Constitutional Law Processes, 24 WM. & MARY L. REV. 169, 173 (1983).
10. See WILLI P. ADAMS, THE FIRST AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONS: REPUBLICAN IDEOLOGY AND THE MAKING OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS IN THE REVOLUTIONARY ERA 4 (1980); Gordon S. Wood, Foreword: State Constitution-Making in the American Revolution 24 RUTGERS L.J. 911, 913-14 (1993); Note, The Theory of State Constitutions, 1966 UTAH L. REV. 542 (1966).
11. See WILLI P. ADAMS, THE FIRST AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONS: REPUBLICAN IDEOLOGY AND THE MAKING OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS IN THE REVOLUTIONARY ERA 4 (1980); Gordon S. Wood, Foreword: State Constitution-Making in the American Revolution 24 RUTGERS L.J. 911, 913-14 (1993); Note, The Theory of State Constitutions, 1966 UTAH L. REV. 542 (1966).
12. See WILLI P. ADAMS, THE FIRST AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONS: REPUBLICAN IDEOLOGY AND THE MAKING OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS IN THE REVOLUTIONARY ERA 4 (1980); Gordon S. Wood, Foreword: State Constitution-Making in the American Revolution 24 RUTGERS L.J. 911, 913-14 (1993); Note, The Theory of State Constitutions, 1966 UTAH L. REV. 542 (1966).
13. ADAMS, supra note 4.
14. DANIEL A. FARBER & SUZANNA SHERRY, A HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 6 (1990).
15. JEFFERSON POWELL, LANGUAGES OF POWER, A SOURCE BOOK OF EARLY AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 22 (1991).
16. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1177 (1996) (Souter, J., dissenting) (citing Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 398-99 (1798) (Iredell, J., dissenting in part)).
17. George A. Billias, American Constitutionalism and Europe, 1776-1848, in AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM ABROAD 13-14,19-23 (George A. Billias ed., 1990).
18. DONALD S. LUTZ, POPULAR CONSENT AND POPULAR CONTROL: WHIG POLITICAL THEORY IN THE EARLY STATE CONSTITUTIONS 45 (1980).
19. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF THE DELAWARE STATE of 1776, § 1.
20. The Declaration of Rights and Fundamental Rules of the Delaware State was adopted by the convention on September 11, 1776. Shortly thereafter, the first Constitution of the State of Delaware was enacted on September 20, 1776. See Wood, supra note 4, at 921 (noting that Delaware's Constitution, as were those from four other states, was prefaced with a bill of rights, "combining in a jarring but exciting manner ringing declarations of universal principles with motley collections of common law procedures").
21. DAVID G. SMITH, THE CONVENTION AND THE CONSTITUTION: THE POLITICAL IDEAS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS 3 (1965).
22. Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779 (1991).
23. WALTER A. POWELL, A HISTORY OF DELAWARE 179 (1928).
24. JOHN M. BLUM ET AL., THE NATIONAL EXPERIENCE: A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (1963).
25. Id.
26. Jack Pope, The Jury, 30 TEX. L. REV. 426, 446 (1961).
27. See generally MERRILL JENSEN, THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE SOCIAL-CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 1774-1781 (1940).
28. THE FEDERALIST No. 15, at 108 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961).
29. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 10 (1964). See John P. Roche, Constitutional Convention of 1787, in 1 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 360 (Leonard W. Levy et al. eds., 1986).
30. DONALD S. LUTZ, THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM 97 (1988). See LUTZ, supra note 10, at 1-2; Robert F. Williams, The State Constitutions of the Founding Decade: Pennsylvania's Radical 1776 Constitution and Its Influences on American Constitutionalism, 62 TEMP. L. REV. 541 (1989).
31. DONALD S. LUTZ, THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM 97 (1988). See LUTZ, supra note 10, at 1-2; Robert F. Williams, The State Constitutions of the Founding Decade: Pennsylvania's Radical 1776 Constitution and Its Influences on American Constitutionalism, 62 TEMP. L. REV. 541 (1989).
32. See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1170 (1996) (Souter, J., dissenting); Robert F. Williams, "Experience Must Be Our Only Guide": The State Constitutional Experience of the Framers of the Federal Constitution, 15 HASTINGS CONST. L. Q. 403 (1988).
33. Edward S. Corwin, The Progress of Constitutional Theory Between the Declaration of Independence and the Meeting of the Philadelphia Convention, in 1 CORWIN ON THE CONSTITUTION 56 (Richard Loss ed., 1981).
34. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 115 S. Ct. 1842, 1855 (1995); SAMUEL H. BEER, To MAKE A NATION: THE REDISCOVERY OF AMERICAN FEDERALISM (1993). See also Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 791 (1982) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part); TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNION: Six ESSAYS ON THE CONSTITUTION (Neil L. York ed., 1988). The Framers provided for the Members of the House of Representatives to be "chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2. The adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 extended that franchise to elections for the United States Senate.
35. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 115 S. Ct. 1842, 1855 (1995); SAMUEL H. BEER, To MAKE A NATION: THE REDISCOVERY OF AMERICAN FEDERALISM (1993). See also Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 791 (1982) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part); TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNION: Six ESSAYS ON THE CONSTITUTION (Neil L. York ed., 1988). The Framers provided for the Members of the House of Representatives to be "chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2. The adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 extended that franchise to elections for the United States Senate.
36. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 116 S. Ct. at 1147 (Souter, J., dissenting). See Martin Diamond, The Federalist on Federalism: Neither a National nor a Federal Constitution but a Composition of Both, 86 YALE L.J. 1273 (1977); Wechsler, supra note 1.
37. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 116 S. Ct. at 1147 (Souter, J., dissenting). See Martin Diamond, The Federalist on Federalism: Neither a National nor a Federal Constitution but a Composition of Both, 86 YALE L.J. 1273 (1977); Wechsler, supra note 1.
38. See, e.g., U.S. Term Limits, 115 S. Ct. at 1872 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
39. BERNARD BAILYN, THE IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 198 (1967). See also WOOD, supra note 1, at 345 (finding that "there must be in every state . . . an indissoluble supreme power from which there could be no appeal").
40. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 116 S. Ct. at 1169 (Souter, J., dissenting) (quoting GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787, 385 (1969)).
41. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 116 S. Ct. at 1169 (Souter, J., dissenting) (quoting GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787, 385 (1969)).
42. U.S. Term Limits, 115 S. Ct. at 1872 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
43. See Seminole Tribe of Florida, 116 S. Ct. at 1169 (Souter, J., dissenting) ("[T]he Federalists could succeed only by emphasizing that the supreme power 'resides in the PEOPLE, as the fountain of government.'") (quoting GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787, 530)). Ours is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (1863).
44. See Seminole Tribe of Florida, 116 S. Ct. at 1169 (Souter, J., dissenting) ("[T]he Federalists could succeed only by emphasizing that the supreme power 'resides in the PEOPLE, as the fountain of government.'") (quoting GORDON S. WOOD, THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 1776-1787, 530)). Ours is a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (1863).
45. See FORREST MCDONALD, Novus ORDO SECLORUM: THE INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF THE CONSTITUTION 278 (1985).
46. 1 PENNSYLVANIA AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, 1787-1788, 302 (John B. McMaster & Frederick D. Stone eds., 1888).
47. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 725 (1869) (quoting Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71, 76 (1869)).
48. THE FEDERALIST No. 32, at 198 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). See also THE FEDERALIST No. 9, at 76 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (referring to "sovereign power" of states). Congressional reliance upon the Necessary and Proper Clause to create the Bank of the United States was upheld in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). For a comparison of McCulloch and Hamilton's view of the Necessary and Proper Clause, see BEER, supra note 25, at 5-6.
49. THE FEDERALIST No. 32, at 198 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). See also THE FEDERALIST No. 9, at 76 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (referring to "sovereign power" of states). Congressional reliance upon the Necessary and Proper Clause to create the Bank of the United States was upheld in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). For a comparison of McCulloch and Hamilton's view of the Necessary and Proper Clause, see BEER, supra note 25, at 5-6.
50. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985) (quoting Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 572 (Powell, J., dissenting)). See MARTIN H. REDISH, THE CONSTITUTION AS POLITICAL STRUCTURE (1995).
51. Diamond, supra, note 26. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181 (1992); Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (noting that principal benefit derived from federal system is "check on abuses of government power"); Karl N. Llewellyn, The Constitution as an Institution, 34 COLUM. L. REV. 1, 38 (1934).
52. THE FEDERALIST No. 51, at 323 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). See also Frank Greene, Madison's Views of Federalism in The Federalist, 24 PUBLIUS 47 (1994).
53. THE FEDERALIST No. 51, at 323 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). See also Frank Greene, Madison's Views of Federalism in The Federalist, 24 PUBLIUS 47 (1994).
54. THE FEDERAUST No. 45, at 292-93 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). See generally Michael W. McConnell, Federalism: Evaluating the Founders' Design, 54 U. CHI. L. REV. 1484, 1491-1511 (1987).
55. THE FEDERAUST No. 45, at 292-93 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). See generally Michael W. McConnell, Federalism: Evaluating the Founders' Design, 54 U. CHI. L. REV. 1484, 1491-1511 (1987).
56. See Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 689 n.4 (1980); Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 201 (1928); Michael E. Libonati, Intergovernmental Relations in State Constitutional Law: A Historical Overview, 496 ANNALS AM. ACAD. POL. & SOC. SCI. 107, 112-16 (1988).
57. James E. Herget, The Missing Power of Local Governments: A Divergence Between Text and Practice in Our Early State Constitution, 62 VA. L. REV. 999, 1001 (1976).
58. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 4. See also Hans A. Linde, Who Is Responsible for Republican Government?, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 709 (1994); Deborah J. Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 COLUM. L. REV. 1,3-10 (1988); Symposium: Guaranteeing a Republican Form of Government, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 709 (1994).
59. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 4. See also Hans A. Linde, Who Is Responsible for Republican Government?, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 709 (1994); Deborah J. Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 COLUM. L. REV. 1,3-10 (1988); Symposium: Guaranteeing a Republican Form of Government, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 709 (1994).
60. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 4. See also Hans A. Linde, Who Is Responsible for Republican Government?, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 709 (1994); Deborah J. Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a Third Century, 88 COLUM. L. REV. 1,3-10 (1988); Symposium: Guaranteeing a Republican Form of Government, 65 U. COLO. L. REV. 709 (1994).
61. See McConnell, supra note 39.
62. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1163 (1996) (Souter, J., dissenting).
63. Id. at 1174 n.55.
64. Ellen A. Peters, Common Law Antecedents of Constitutional Law in Connecticut, 53 ALB. L REV. 259, 261 (1989).
65. DEL, CONST. of 1776, art. XXV, reprinted in 2 WILLIAM F. SWINDLER, SOURCES AND DOCUMENTS OF UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS 203 (1976). See also Jonathan F. Hoffman, By the Course of the Law: The Origins of the Open Courts Clause of State Constitutions, 74 OR. L. REV. 1279, 1308 (1995).
66. DEL, CONST. of 1776, art. XXV, reprinted in 2 WILLIAM F. SWINDLER, SOURCES AND DOCUMENTS OF UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS 203 (1976). See also Jonathan F. Hoffman, By the Course of the Law: The Origins of the Open Courts Clause of State Constitutions, 74 OR. L. REV. 1279, 1308 (1995).
67. See, e.g., Ford W. Hall, The Common Law: An Account of Its Reception in the United States, 4 VAND. L. REV. 791, 796 (1951).
68. Report on Resolutions, House of Delegates, Session of 1799-1800, Concerning Alien and Sedition Laws, in 6 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 373 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1906).
69. Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law: Part One, 133 U. PA. L. REV. 1003, 1056 (1985); William B. Stoebuck, Reception of the English Common Law in the American Colonies, 10 WM. & MARY L. REV. 393,401 (1968) ("The assumption that colonial law was essentially the same in all colonies is wholly without foundation."); cf. 6 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 49, at 376.
70. Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law: Part One, 133 U. PA. L. REV. 1003, 1056 (1985); William B. Stoebuck, Reception of the English Common Law in the American Colonies, 10 WM. & MARY L. REV. 393,401 (1968) ("The assumption that colonial law was essentially the same in all colonies is wholly without foundation."); cf. 6 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, supra note 49, at 376.
71. See generally WOOD, supra note 1, at 467.
72. See 1 JULIUS GOEBEL, JR., THE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES DEVISE, HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, ANTECEDENTS AND BEGINNINGS TO 1801, 229-30 (1971).
73. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 2.
74. See Letter from John Marshall to St. George Tucker (Nov. 27, 1800), reprinted in Stewart Jay, Origins of Federal Common Law: Part Two, 133 U. PA. L. REV. 1231, 1326 app. A (1985) ("I do not believe one man can be found" who maintains "that the common law of England has . . . been adopted as the common law of America by the Constitution of the United States.").
75. GEORGE MASON, OBJECTIONS TO THIS CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT, reprinted in 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 637 (Max Farrand ed., 1911). See also 3 JONATHAN ELLIOT, DEBATES ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 446-49 (Jonathan Elliot ed., Philadelphia, 2d ed. 1836) (Patrick Henry, Virginia Convention).
76. GEORGE MASON, OBJECTIONS TO THIS CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT, reprinted in 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 637 (Max Farrand ed., 1911). See also 3 JONATHAN ELLIOT, DEBATES ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 446-49 (Jonathan Elliot ed., Philadelphia, 2d ed. 1836) (Patrick Henry, Virginia Convention).
77. GEORGE MASON, OBJECTIONS TO THIS CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT, reprinted in 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 637 (Max Farrand ed., 1911). See also 3 JONATHAN ELLIOT, DEBATES ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 446-49 (Jonathan Elliot ed., Philadelphia, 2d ed. 1836) (Patrick Henry, Virginia Convention).
78. Jay, supra note 54, at 1256.
79. During those debates, George Mason, an Antifederalist (the popular name for those opposing the Constitution) wrote his Objections to the Constitution. See PAUL L. FORD, PAMPHLETS ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 327-32 (Brooklyn, 1888), reprinted in 1 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, THE BILL OF RIGHTS: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY 444-47 (1971). Mason started his Objections by the assertions, "There is no declaration of rights," and "the declaration of rights, in the separate states, are no security" since federal laws are supreme. FORD, supra, at 327, reprinted in 1 SCHWARTZ, supra, at 444. See also Mason v. State, 534 A.2d 242,246 n.8 (Del. 1987).
80. During those debates, George Mason, an Antifederalist (the popular name for those opposing the Constitution) wrote his Objections to the Constitution. See PAUL L. FORD, PAMPHLETS ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 327-32 (Brooklyn, 1888), reprinted in 1 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, THE BILL OF RIGHTS: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY 444-47 (1971). Mason started his Objections by the assertions, "There is no declaration of rights," and "the declaration of rights, in the separate states, are no security" since federal laws are supreme. FORD, supra, at 327, reprinted in 1 SCHWARTZ, supra, at 444. See also Mason v. State, 534 A.2d 242,246 n.8 (Del. 1987).
81. During those debates, George Mason, an Antifederalist (the popular name for those opposing the Constitution) wrote his Objections to the Constitution. See PAUL L. FORD, PAMPHLETS ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 327-32 (Brooklyn, 1888), reprinted in 1 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, THE BILL OF RIGHTS: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY 444-47 (1971). Mason started his Objections by the assertions, "There is no declaration of rights," and "the declaration of rights, in the separate states, are no security" since federal laws are supreme. FORD, supra, at 327, reprinted in 1 SCHWARTZ, supra, at 444. See also Mason v. State, 534 A.2d 242,246 n.8 (Del. 1987).
82. 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, supra note 55, at 588, quoted in Developments in the Law - The Interpretation of State Constitutional Rights, 95 HARV. L. REV. 1324, 1327 (1982).
83. 2 THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, supra note 55, at 588, quoted in Developments in the Law - The Interpretation of State Constitutional Rights, 95 HARV. L. REV. 1324, 1327 (1982).
84. Claudio v. State, 585 A.2d 1278, 1292 n.35 (Del. 1991). When President George Washington gave his first annual message to Congress in 1789, he noted that demands for amendments to the United States Constitution were widespread. Id. at 1293.
85. Id. at 1292 n.35. See Akhil R. Amar, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 YALE L.J. 1131 (1991).
86. THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE STATES: THE COLONIAL AND REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF AMERICAN LIBERTIES (Patrick T. Conley & John P. Kaminski eds., 1992); 2 SCHWARTZ, supra note 57, at 1204; BERNARD SCHWARTZ, THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND: A HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN BILL OF RIGHTS 87-90 (1977); Donald S. Lutz, The States and the Bill of Rights, 16 So. ILL. U. L.J. 251 (1992).
87. THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE STATES: THE COLONIAL AND REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF AMERICAN LIBERTIES (Patrick T. Conley & John P. Kaminski eds., 1992); 2 SCHWARTZ, supra note 57, at 1204; BERNARD SCHWARTZ, THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND: A HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN BILL OF RIGHTS 87-90 (1977); Donald S. Lutz, The States and the Bill of Rights, 16 So. ILL. U. L.J. 251 (1992).
88. THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE STATES: THE COLONIAL AND REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF AMERICAN LIBERTIES (Patrick T. Conley & John P. Kaminski eds., 1992); 2 SCHWARTZ, supra note 57, at 1204; BERNARD SCHWARTZ, THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND: A HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN BILL OF RIGHTS 87-90 (1977); Donald S. Lutz, The States and the Bill of Rights, 16 So. ILL. U. L.J. 251 (1992).
89. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S (7 Pet.) 243 (1833).
90. Id. at 247-48.
91. David L. Shapiro, Reflections on the Allocation of Jurisdiction Between State and Federal Courts: A Response to "Reassessing the Allocation of Judicial Business Between State and Federal Courts," 78 VA. L. REV. 1839 (1992). See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, cert. denied, 305 U.S. 637 (1938); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Hans A. Linde, E Pluribus - Constitutional Theory and State Courts, 18 GA. L. REV. 165 (1984).
92. David L. Shapiro, Reflections on the Allocation of Jurisdiction Between State and Federal Courts: A Response to "Reassessing the Allocation of Judicial Business Between State and Federal Courts," 78 VA. L. REV. 1839 (1992). See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, cert. denied, 305 U.S. 637 (1938); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Hans A. Linde, E Pluribus - Constitutional Theory and State Courts, 18 GA. L. REV. 165 (1984).
93. Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. v. Agnew, 300 U.S. 608, 613 (1937); Murdock v. Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590 (1875).
94. Robert F. Utter & Sanford E. Pitler, Presenting a State Constitutional Argument: Comment on Theory and Technique, 20 IND. L. REV. 635, 641 (1987).
95. Williams, supra note 3, at 178.
96. Edward S. Corwin, The Passing of Dual Federalism, 36 VA. L. REV. 4, 19 (1950) (emphasis omitted).
97. REDISH, supra note 36, at 25.
98. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). See Maeva Marcus, Louis D. Brandeis and the Laboratories of Democracy, and Tony Freyer, Hugo Black and the Principles of "Our Federalism", in FEDERALISM AND THE JUDICIAL MIND: ESSAYS ON AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICS 75, 93 (Harry N. Scheiber ed., 1992); see also James A. Gardner, The "States-as-Laboratories" Metaphor in State Constitutional Law, 30 VAL. U. L. REV. (1996); Paul W. Kahn, Interpretation and Authority in State Constitutionalism, 106 HARV. L. REV. 1147 (1993); Susan Rose-Ackerman, Risk Taking and Reelection: Does Federalism Promote Innovation?, 9 J. LEGAL STUD. 593 (1980).
99. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). See Maeva Marcus, Louis D. Brandeis and the Laboratories of Democracy, and Tony Freyer, Hugo Black and the Principles of "Our Federalism", in FEDERALISM AND THE JUDICIAL MIND: ESSAYS ON AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICS 75, 93 (Harry N. Scheiber ed., 1992); see also James A. Gardner, The "States-as-Laboratories" Metaphor in State Constitutional Law, 30 VAL. U. L. REV. (1996); Paul W. Kahn, Interpretation and Authority in State Constitutionalism, 106 HARV. L. REV. 1147 (1993); Susan Rose-Ackerman, Risk Taking and Reelection: Does Federalism Promote Innovation?, 9 J. LEGAL STUD. 593 (1980).
100. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). See Maeva Marcus, Louis D. Brandeis and the Laboratories of Democracy, and Tony Freyer, Hugo Black and the Principles of "Our Federalism", in FEDERALISM AND THE JUDICIAL MIND: ESSAYS ON AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICS 75, 93 (Harry N. Scheiber ed., 1992); see also James A. Gardner, The "States-as-Laboratories" Metaphor in State Constitutional Law, 30 VAL. U. L. REV. (1996); Paul W. Kahn, Interpretation and Authority in State Constitutionalism, 106 HARV. L. REV. 1147 (1993); Susan Rose-Ackerman, Risk Taking and Reelection: Does Federalism Promote Innovation?, 9 J. LEGAL STUD. 593 (1980).
101. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). See Maeva Marcus, Louis D. Brandeis and the Laboratories of Democracy, and Tony Freyer, Hugo Black and the Principles of "Our Federalism", in FEDERALISM AND THE JUDICIAL MIND: ESSAYS ON AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND POLITICS 75, 93 (Harry N. Scheiber ed., 1992); see also James A. Gardner, The "States-as-Laboratories" Metaphor in State Constitutional Law, 30 VAL. U. L. REV. (1996); Paul W. Kahn, Interpretation and Authority in State Constitutionalism, 106 HARV. L. REV. 1147 (1993); Susan Rose-Ackerman, Risk Taking and Reelection: Does Federalism Promote Innovation?, 9 J. LEGAL STUD. 593 (1980).
102. See, e.g., DEL. CONST. of 1792; see generally Claudio v. State, 585 A.2d 1278 (Del. 1991).
103. See, e.g., DEL. CONST. of 1792.
104. See John Devlin, Toward a State Constitutional Analysis of Allocation of Powers: Legislators and Legislative Appointees Performing Administrative Functions, 66 TEMP. L. REV. 1205 (1993); Herget, supra note 41, at 1001; Libonati, supra note 40, at 112.
105. Jonathan Feldman, Separation of Powers and Judicial Review of Positive Rights Claims: The Role of State Courts in an Era of Positive Government, 24 RUTGERS L.J. 1057 (1993).
106. Robert F. Williams, Foreword: The Importance of an Independent State Constitutional Equality Doctrine in School Finance Cases and Beyond, 24 CONN. L. REV. 675 (1992).
107. Allen W. Hubsch, The Emerging Right to Education Under State Constitutionalism, 65 TEMP. L. REV. 1325 (1992); William E. Thro, Note, To Render Them Safe: The Analysis of State Constitutional Provisions in Public School Finance Reform Litigation, 75 VA. L. REV. 1639, 1661-70 (1989). State constitutions, except for Mississippi's, provide for public education. Thro, supra, at 1661.
108. Allen W. Hubsch, The Emerging Right to Education Under State Constitutionalism, 65 TEMP. L. REV. 1325 (1992); William E. Thro, Note, To Render Them Safe: The Analysis of State Constitutional Provisions in Public School Finance Reform Litigation, 75 VA. L. REV. 1639, 1661-70 (1989). State constitutions, except for Mississippi's, provide for public education. Thro, supra, at 1661.
109. Grad, supra note 1.
110. See Robert J. Martineau, The Mandatory Referendum on Calling a State Constitutional Convention: Enforcing the People's Right to Reform Their Government, 31 OHIO ST. L.J. 421 (1970); Robert F. Williams, Are State Constitutional Conventions Things of the Past? The Increasing Role of the Constitutional Commission in State Constitutional Change, 1 HOFSTRA L. & POL'Y SYMP. 1 (1996).
111. See Robert J. Martineau, The Mandatory Referendum on Calling a State Constitutional Convention: Enforcing the People's Right to Reform Their Government, 31 OHIO ST. L.J. 421 (1970); Robert F. Williams, Are State Constitutional Conventions Things of the Past? The Increasing Role of the Constitutional Commission in State Constitutional Change, 1 HOFSTRA L. & POL'Y SYMP. 1 (1996).
112. See, e.g., DEL. CONST. art. XVI, § 1.
113. JAMES W. HURST, THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN LAW: THE LAWMAKERS 199-204 (1950). See THOMAS E. CRONIN, DIRECT DEMOCRACY: THE POLITICS OF INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL (1989); DAVID B. MAGLEBY, DIRECT LEGISLATION: VOTING ON BALLOT PROPOSITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES (1983); DAVID B. SCHMIDT, CITIZEN LAWMAKERS: THE BALLOT INITIATIVE REVOLUTION (1989).
114. JAMES W. HURST, THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN LAW: THE LAWMAKERS 199-204 (1950). See THOMAS E. CRONIN, DIRECT DEMOCRACY: THE POLITICS OF INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL (1989); DAVID B. MAGLEBY, DIRECT LEGISLATION: VOTING ON BALLOT PROPOSITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES (1983); DAVID B. SCHMIDT, CITIZEN LAWMAKERS: THE BALLOT INITIATIVE REVOLUTION (1989).
115. JAMES W. HURST, THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN LAW: THE LAWMAKERS 199-204 (1950). See THOMAS E. CRONIN, DIRECT DEMOCRACY: THE POLITICS OF INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL (1989); DAVID B. MAGLEBY, DIRECT LEGISLATION: VOTING ON BALLOT PROPOSITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES (1983); DAVID B. SCHMIDT, CITIZEN LAWMAKERS: THE BALLOT INITIATIVE REVOLUTION (1989).
116. JAMES W. HURST, THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN LAW: THE LAWMAKERS 199-204 (1950). See THOMAS E. CRONIN, DIRECT DEMOCRACY: THE POLITICS OF INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL (1989); DAVID B. MAGLEBY, DIRECT LEGISLATION: VOTING ON BALLOT PROPOSITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES (1983); DAVID B. SCHMIDT, CITIZEN LAWMAKERS: THE BALLOT INITIATIVE REVOLUTION (1989).
117. Williams, supra note 3, at 202.
118. Grad, supra note 1, at 928-29, 942-43, 945-47, 972-73.
119. HURST, supra note 80, at 237-38, 240-46. See also FLETCHER GREEN, CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES, 1776-1860 (1930); MERRILL D. PETERSON, DEMOCRACY, LIBERTY & PROPERTY: THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS OF THE 1820s (1966).
120. HURST, supra note 80, at 237-38, 240-46. See also FLETCHER GREEN, CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES, 1776-1860 (1930); MERRILL D. PETERSON, DEMOCRACY, LIBERTY & PROPERTY: THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS OF THE 1820s (1966).
121. Michael Heise, State Constitutions, School Finance Litigation, and the "Third Wave": From Equity to Adequacy, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1151 (1995).
122. Id.
123. James A. Henretta, Foreword: Rethinking the State Constitutional Tradition, 22 RUTGERS L.J. 819, 819-26, 836-39 (1991). See also PETERSON, supra note 83.
124. Henretta, supra note 86, at 819-26, 836-39.
125. Id.
126. Rice v. Foster, 4 Harr. 479, 488 (Del. 1847).
127. HURST, supra note 80, at 237-38,240-46. See MICHAEL F. HOLT, THE POLITICAL CRISIS OF THE 1850s (1978).
128. See generally Grace v. Howlett, 283 N.E.2d 474 (Ill. 1972); Vreeland v. Byme, 370 A.2d 825 (N.J. 1977); Fletcher Green, A Malapropian Provision of State Constitutions, 24 WASH. U. L.Q. 359 (1939); Frank E. Horack, Special Legislation: Another Twilight Zone, 12 IND. L.J. 109 (1937); Sidney Z. Karasik, Equal Protection of the Law Under the Federal and Illinois Constitutions, 30 DEPAUL L. REV. 263 (1981).
129. See generally Grace v. Howlett, 283 N.E.2d 474 (Ill. 1972); Vreeland v. Byme, 370 A.2d 825 (N.J. 1977); Fletcher Green, A Malapropian Provision of State Constitutions, 24 WASH. U. L.Q. 359 (1939); Frank E. Horack, Special Legislation: Another Twilight Zone, 12 IND. L.J. 109 (1937); Sidney Z. Karasik, Equal Protection of the Law Under the Federal and Illinois Constitutions, 30 DEPAUL L. REV. 263 (1981).
130. See generally Grace v. Howlett, 283 N.E.2d 474 (Ill. 1972); Vreeland v. Byme, 370 A.2d 825 (N.J. 1977); Fletcher Green, A Malapropian Provision of State Constitutions, 24 WASH. U. L.Q. 359 (1939); Frank E. Horack, Special Legislation: Another Twilight Zone, 12 IND. L.J. 109 (1937); Sidney Z. Karasik, Equal Protection of the Law Under the Federal and Illinois Constitutions, 30 DEPAUL L. REV. 263 (1981).
131. See generally Tumbull v. Fink, 668 A.2d 1370, 1381-91 (Del. 1995) (Holland, J., dissenting); Millard H. Ruud, No Law Shall Embrace More Than One Subject 42 MINN. L. REV. 389 (1958).
132. HURST, supra note 80, at 237-38, 240-46.
133. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8.
134. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 193 (1819).
135. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states "or to the people" all powers not prohibited to the states or delegated to the United States by the remainder of the Constitution. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941). The Darby decision was cited with approval in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 156 (1992). See H. Jefferson Powell, The Oldest Question of Constitutional Law, 79 VA. L. REV. 633, 652-81 (1993); see also Richard E. Levy, New York v. United States; An Essay on the Uses and Misuses of Precedent, History, and Policy in Determining the Scope of Federal Power, 41 KAN. L. REV. 493 (1993).
136. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states "or to the people" all powers not prohibited to the states or delegated to the United States by the remainder of the Constitution. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941). The Darby decision was cited with approval in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 156 (1992). See H. Jefferson Powell, The Oldest Question of Constitutional Law, 79 VA. L. REV. 633, 652-81 (1993); see also Richard E. Levy, New York v. United States; An Essay on the Uses and Misuses of Precedent, History, and Policy in Determining the Scope of Federal Power, 41 KAN. L. REV. 493 (1993).
137. The precursor for the Eleventh Amendment was Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793). See Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985) (applying plain statement rule to determine whether federal law abrogates states' Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1163 (1996) (Souter, J., dissenting).
138. U.S. CONST. amend. X.
139. Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542, 556-57 (1975) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
140. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824); cf. United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995).
141. City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156,179 (1980); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 455 (1976). See also WILLIAM E. NELSON, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. FROM POLITICAL PRINCIPLE TO JUDICIAL DOCTRINE (1988),
142. City of Rome, 446 U.S. at 179.
143. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
144. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 5. See Fitzpatrick, 427 U.S. at 453.
145. GERALD GUNTHER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 422-40 (11th ed. 1985). See Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833); see also Shirley S. Abrahamson, Divided We Stand: State Constitutions in a More Perfect Union, 18 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 723, 727-28 (1991); Stanley Mosk, State Constitutionalism: Both Liberal and Conservative, 63 TEX. L. REV. 1081, 1081-82 (1985); Stewart G. Pollock, Adequate and Independent Grounds as a Means of Balancing the Relationship Between State and Federal Courts, 63 TEX. L. REV. 977, 979 (1985).
146. GERALD GUNTHER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 422-40 (11th ed. 1985). See Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833); see also Shirley S. Abrahamson, Divided We Stand: State Constitutions in a More Perfect Union, 18 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 723, 727-28 (1991); Stanley Mosk, State Constitutionalism: Both Liberal and Conservative, 63 TEX. L. REV. 1081, 1081-82 (1985); Stewart G. Pollock, Adequate and Independent Grounds as a Means of Balancing the Relationship Between State and Federal Courts, 63 TEX. L. REV. 977, 979 (1985).
147. GERALD GUNTHER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 422-40 (11th ed. 1985). See Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833); see also Shirley S. Abrahamson, Divided We Stand: State Constitutions in a More Perfect Union, 18 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 723, 727-28 (1991); Stanley Mosk, State Constitutionalism: Both Liberal and Conservative, 63 TEX. L. REV. 1081, 1081-82 (1985); Stewart G. Pollock, Adequate and Independent Grounds as a Means of Balancing the Relationship Between State and Federal Courts, 63 TEX. L. REV. 977, 979 (1985).
148. GERALD GUNTHER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 422-40 (11th ed. 1985). See Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833); see also Shirley S. Abrahamson, Divided We Stand: State Constitutions in a More Perfect Union, 18 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 723, 727-28 (1991); Stanley Mosk, State Constitutionalism: Both Liberal and Conservative, 63 TEX. L. REV. 1081, 1081-82 (1985); Stewart G. Pollock, Adequate and Independent Grounds as a Means of Balancing the Relationship Between State and Federal Courts, 63 TEX. L. REV. 977, 979 (1985).
149. For discussions regarding the incorporation of the federal Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby making them applicable to the states, see RICHARD C. CORTNER, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE NATIONALIZATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (1981); Akhil R. Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 YALE L.J. 1193 (1992); Michael K. Curtis, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, 14 CONN. L. REV. 237 (1982); Charles Fair-man, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, 2 STAN. L. REV. 5 (1949); Louis Henkin, "Selective Incorporation" in the Fourteenth Amendment, 73 YALE L.J. 74 (1963).
150. For discussions regarding the incorporation of the federal Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby making them applicable to the states, see RICHARD C. CORTNER, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE NATIONALIZATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (1981); Akhil R. Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 YALE L.J. 1193 (1992); Michael K. Curtis, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, 14 CONN. L. REV. 237 (1982); Charles Fair-man, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, 2 STAN. L. REV. 5 (1949); Louis Henkin, "Selective Incorporation" in the Fourteenth Amendment, 73 YALE L.J. 74 (1963).
151. For discussions regarding the incorporation of the federal Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby making them applicable to the states, see RICHARD C. CORTNER, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE NATIONALIZATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (1981); Akhil R. Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 YALE L.J. 1193 (1992); Michael K. Curtis, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, 14 CONN. L. REV. 237 (1982); Charles Fair-man, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, 2 STAN. L. REV. 5 (1949); Louis Henkin, "Selective Incorporation" in the Fourteenth Amendment, 73 YALE L.J. 74 (1963).
152. For discussions regarding the incorporation of the federal Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby making them applicable to the states, see RICHARD C. CORTNER, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE NATIONALIZATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (1981); Akhil R. Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 YALE L.J. 1193 (1992); Michael K. Curtis, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, 14 CONN. L. REV. 237 (1982); Charles Fair-man, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, 2 STAN. L. REV. 5 (1949); Louis Henkin, "Selective Incorporation" in the Fourteenth Amendment, 73 YALE L.J. 74 (1963).
153. For discussions regarding the incorporation of the federal Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby making them applicable to the states, see RICHARD C. CORTNER, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS: THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE NATIONALIZATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (1981); Akhil R. Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 YALE L.J. 1193 (1992); Michael K. Curtis, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, 14 CONN. L. REV. 237 (1982); Charles Fair-man, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, 2 STAN. L. REV. 5 (1949); Louis Henkin, "Selective Incorporation" in the Fourteenth Amendment, 73 YALE L.J. 74 (1963).
154. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
155. Minneapolis v. St. Louis R.R. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916); Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1876).
156. McCool v. Gehret, 657 A.2d 269, 281 (Del. 1995). See Richard S. Arnold, Trial by Jury: The Constitutional Right to a Jury of Twelve in Civil Trials, 22 HOFSTRA L. REV. 1 (1993).
157. Phyllis W. Beck, Foreword: Stepping over the Procedural Threshold in the Presentation of State Constitutional Claims, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1035 (1995); Hans A. Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States' Bills of Rights, 9 U. BALT. L. REV. 379, 381 (1980). See also Mosk, supra note 105, at 1083; John M. Wisdom, Foreword: The Ever-Whirling Wheels of American Federalism, 59 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1063 (1984).
158. Phyllis W. Beck, Foreword: Stepping over the Procedural Threshold in the Presentation of State Constitutional Claims, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1035 (1995); Hans A. Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States' Bills of Rights, 9 U. BALT. L. REV. 379, 381 (1980). See also Mosk, supra note 105, at 1083; John M. Wisdom, Foreword: The Ever-Whirling Wheels of American Federalism, 59 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1063 (1984).
159. Phyllis W. Beck, Foreword: Stepping over the Procedural Threshold in the Presentation of State Constitutional Claims, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1035 (1995); Hans A. Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States' Bills of Rights, 9 U. BALT. L. REV. 379, 381 (1980). See also Mosk, supra note 105, at 1083; John M. Wisdom, Foreword: The Ever-Whirling Wheels of American Federalism, 59 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1063 (1984).
160. State v. Williams, 459 A.2d 641 (N.J. 1983); State v. Gunwall, 720 P.2d 808, 811-13 (Wash. 1986). See also Paul W. Kahn, State Constitutionalism and the Problems of Fairness, 30 VAL, U. L REV. 459-474 (1996); Stewart G. Pollock, State Constitutions as Separate Sources of Fundamental Rights, 35 RUTGERS L. REV. 707 (1983); Robert F. Williams, In the Supreme Court's Shadow: Legitimacy of State Rejection of Supreme Court Reasoning and Result, 35 S.C. L. REV. 353 (1984).
161. State v. Williams, 459 A.2d 641 (N.J. 1983); State v. Gunwall, 720 P.2d 808, 811-13 (Wash. 1986). See also Paul W. Kahn, State Constitutionalism and the Problems of Fairness, 30 VAL, U. L REV. 459-474 (1996); Stewart G. Pollock, State Constitutions as Separate Sources of Fundamental Rights, 35 RUTGERS L. REV. 707 (1983); Robert F. Williams, In the Supreme Court's Shadow: Legitimacy of State Rejection of Supreme Court Reasoning and Result, 35 S.C. L. REV. 353 (1984).
162. State v. Williams, 459 A.2d 641 (N.J. 1983); State v. Gunwall, 720 P.2d 808, 811-13 (Wash. 1986). See also Paul W. Kahn, State Constitutionalism and the Problems of Fairness, 30 VAL, U. L REV. 459-474 (1996); Stewart G. Pollock, State Constitutions as Separate Sources of Fundamental Rights, 35 RUTGERS L. REV. 707 (1983); Robert F. Williams, In the Supreme Court's Shadow: Legitimacy of State Rejection of Supreme Court Reasoning and Result, 35 S.C. L. REV. 353 (1984).
163. City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 179 (1980); see also Harry N. Scheiber, Federalism and the American Economic Order 10 LAW & SOC'Y REV. 57 (1975).
164. U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816).
165. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983); S. Carran Daughtrey, Special Project: The Continuing Evolution of Criminal Constitutional Law in State Courts, 47 VAND. L. REV. 795 (1994); James A. Gardner, The Failed Discourse of State Constitutionalism, 90 MICH. L. REV. 761 (1992); G. Alan Tarr, The Past and Future of the New Judicial Federalism, 24 PUBLIUS 63 (Spring 1994). Responses to Professor Gardner's article and Professor Gardner's reply are set forth in Roundtable, 24 RUTGERS L.J. 927, 972-1055 (1993). See also Jonathan M. Flagg, The Role of Primacy Doctrine in New Hampshire Criminal Procedure: An Expansion of Individual Constitutional Rights, 28 N.H.B.J. 357 (1987); Earl Maltz, False Prophet - Justice Brennan and the Theory of State Constitutional Law, 15 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 429, 443-44 (1988). Cf. William J. Brennan, Jr.,
166. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983); S. Carran Daughtrey, Special Project: The Continuing Evolution of Criminal Constitutional Law in State Courts, 47 VAND. L. REV. 795 (1994); James A. Gardner, The Failed Discourse of State Constitutionalism, 90 MICH. L. REV. 761 (1992); G. Alan Tarr, The Past and Future of the New Judicial Federalism, 24 PUBLIUS 63 (Spring 1994). Responses to Professor Gardner's article and Professor Gardner's reply are set forth in Roundtable, 24 RUTGERS L.J. 927, 972-1055 (1993). See also Jonathan M. Flagg, The Role of Primacy Doctrine in New Hampshire Criminal Procedure: An Expansion of Individual Constitutional Rights, 28 N.H.B.J. 357 (1987); Earl Maltz, False Prophet - Justice Brennan and the Theory of State Constitutional Law, 15 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 429, 443-44 (1988). Cf. William J. Brennan, Jr., The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians of Individual Rights, 61 N.Y.U. L. REV. 535 (1986); William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 HARV. L. REV. 489 (1977).
167. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983); S. Carran Daughtrey, Special Project: The Continuing Evolution of Criminal Constitutional Law in State Courts, 47 VAND. L. REV. 795 (1994); James A. Gardner, The Failed Discourse of State Constitutionalism, 90 MICH. L. REV. 761 (1992); G. Alan Tarr, The Past and Future of the New Judicial Federalism, 24 PUBLIUS 63 (Spring 1994). Responses to Professor Gardner's article and Professor Gardner's reply are set forth in Roundtable, 24 RUTGERS L.J. 927, 972-1055 (1993). See also Jonathan M. Flagg, The Role of Primacy Doctrine in New Hampshire Criminal Procedure: An Expansion of Individual Constitutional Rights, 28 N.H.B.J. 357 (1987); Earl Maltz, False Prophet - Justice Brennan and the Theory of State Constitutional Law, 15 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 429, 443-44 (1988). Cf. William J. Brennan, Jr., The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians of Individual Rights, 61 N.Y.U. L. REV. 535 (1986); William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 HARV. L. REV. 489 (1977).
168. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983); S. Carran Daughtrey, Special Project: The Continuing Evolution of Criminal Constitutional Law in State Courts, 47 VAND. L. REV. 795 (1994); James A. Gardner, The Failed Discourse of State Constitutionalism, 90 MICH. L. REV. 761 (1992); G. Alan Tarr, The Past and Future of the New Judicial Federalism, 24 PUBLIUS 63 (Spring 1994). Responses to Professor Gardner's article and Professor Gardner's reply are set forth in Roundtable, 24 RUTGERS L.J. 927, 972-1055 (1993). See also Jonathan M. Flagg, The Role of Primacy Doctrine in New Hampshire Criminal Procedure: An Expansion of Individual Constitutional Rights, 28 N.H.B.J. 357 (1987); Earl Maltz, False Prophet - Justice Brennan and the Theory of State Constitutional Law, 15 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 429, 443-44 (1988). Cf. William J. Brennan, Jr., The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians of Individual Rights, 61 N.Y.U. L. REV. 535 (1986); William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 HARV. L. REV. 489 (1977).
169. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983); S. Carran Daughtrey, Special Project: The Continuing Evolution of Criminal Constitutional Law in State Courts, 47 VAND. L. REV. 795 (1994); James A. Gardner, The Failed Discourse of State Constitutionalism, 90 MICH. L. REV. 761 (1992); G. Alan Tarr, The Past and Future of the New Judicial Federalism, 24 PUBLIUS 63 (Spring 1994). Responses to Professor Gardner's article and Professor Gardner's reply are set forth in Roundtable, 24 RUTGERS L.J. 927, 972-1055 (1993). See also Jonathan M. Flagg, The Role of Primacy Doctrine in New Hampshire Criminal Procedure: An Expansion of Individual Constitutional Rights, 28 N.H.B.J. 357 (1987); Earl Maltz, False Prophet - Justice Brennan and the Theory of State Constitutional Law, 15 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 429, 443-44 (1988). Cf. William J. Brennan, Jr., The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians of Individual Rights, 61 N.Y.U. L. REV. 535 (1986); William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 HARV. L. REV. 489 (1977).
170. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983); S. Carran Daughtrey, Special Project: The Continuing Evolution of Criminal Constitutional Law in State Courts, 47 VAND. L. REV. 795 (1994); James A. Gardner, The Failed Discourse of State Constitutionalism, 90 MICH. L. REV. 761 (1992); G. Alan Tarr, The Past and Future of the New Judicial Federalism, 24 PUBLIUS 63 (Spring 1994). Responses to Professor Gardner's article and Professor Gardner's reply are set forth in Roundtable, 24 RUTGERS L.J. 927, 972-1055 (1993). See also Jonathan M. Flagg, The Role of Primacy Doctrine in New Hampshire Criminal Procedure: An Expansion of Individual Constitutional Rights, 28 N.H.B.J. 357 (1987); Earl Maltz, False Prophet - Justice Brennan and the Theory of State Constitutional Law, 15 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 429, 443-44 (1988). Cf. William J. Brennan, Jr., The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians of Individual Rights, 61 N.Y.U. L. REV. 535 (1986); William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 HARV. L. REV. 489 (1977).
171. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983); S. Carran Daughtrey, Special Project: The Continuing Evolution of Criminal Constitutional Law in State Courts, 47 VAND. L. REV. 795 (1994); James A. Gardner, The Failed Discourse of State Constitutionalism, 90 MICH. L. REV. 761 (1992); G. Alan Tarr, The Past and Future of the New Judicial Federalism, 24 PUBLIUS 63 (Spring 1994). Responses to Professor Gardner's article and Professor Gardner's reply are set forth in Roundtable, 24 RUTGERS L.J. 927, 972-1055 (1993). See also Jonathan M. Flagg, The Role of Primacy Doctrine in New Hampshire Criminal Procedure: An Expansion of Individual Constitutional Rights, 28 N.H.B.J. 357 (1987); Earl Maltz, False Prophet - Justice Brennan and the Theory of State Constitutional Law, 15 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 429, 443-44 (1988). Cf. William J. Brennan, Jr., The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians of Individual Rights, 61 N.Y.U. L. REV. 535 (1986); William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 HARV. L. REV. 489 (1977).
172. See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983); S. Carran Daughtrey, Special Project: The Continuing Evolution of Criminal Constitutional Law in State Courts, 47 VAND. L. REV. 795 (1994); James A. Gardner, The Failed Discourse of State Constitutionalism, 90 MICH. L. REV. 761 (1992); G. Alan Tarr, The Past and Future of the New Judicial Federalism, 24 PUBLIUS 63 (Spring 1994). Responses to Professor Gardner's article and Professor Gardner's reply are set forth in Roundtable, 24 RUTGERS L.J. 927, 972-1055 (1993). See also Jonathan M. Flagg, The Role of Primacy Doctrine in New Hampshire Criminal Procedure: An Expansion of Individual Constitutional Rights, 28 N.H.B.J. 357 (1987); Earl Maltz, False Prophet - Justice Brennan and the Theory of State Constitutional Law, 15 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 429, 443-44 (1988). Cf. William J. Brennan, Jr., The Bill of Rights and the States: The Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians of Individual Rights, 61 N.Y.U. L. REV. 535 (1986); William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 HARV. L. REV. 489 (1977).
173. Robert F. Utter, Swimming in the Jaws of the Crocodile: State Court Comment on Federal Constitutional Issues When Disposing of Cases on State Constitutional Grounds, 63 TEX. L. REV. 1025, 1027-29, 1047-50 (1985).
174. Id. at 1028.
175. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
176. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
177. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
178. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
179. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
180. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
181. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
182. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
183. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
184. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
185. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
186. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
187. Id. at 1028-29. See John Kincaid, Foreword: The New Federalism Context of the New Judicial Federalism, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 913, 913 n.1 (1995). See also Catherine Albisa, The Last Line of Defense: The Tennessee Constitution and the Right to Privacy, 25 MEM. ST. U. L. REV. 3 (1994); Paul G. Cassell, Balancing the Scales of Justice: The Case for and the Effects of Utah's Victims' Rights Amendment, 1994 UTAH L. REV. 1373 (1994); Matthew C. Jones, Fraud and the Franchise: The Pennsylvania Constitution's "Free and Equal Election" Clause as an Independent Basis for State and Local Election Challenges, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1473 (1995); J. Clark Kelso, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, 19 PEPP. L. REV. 327 (1992); Bert B. Lockwood, Jr. et al., Litigating State Constitutional Rights to Happiness and Safety: A Strategy for Ensuring the Provision of Basic Needs to the Poor, 2 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 1 (1993); Sheldon H. Nahmod, State Constitutional Torts: Deshaney, Reverse Federalism and Community, 27 RUTGERS L.J. 949 (1995); Suzanna Sherry, Natural Law in the States, 61 U. CIN. L. REV. 171 (1992); Robert F. Williams, The New Jersey Equal Rights Amendment: A Documentary Sourcebook, 16 WOMEN'S RTS. L. RPTR. 69 (1994); Antony B. Klapper, Comment, Finding a Right in State Constitutions for Community Treatment of the Mentally III, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 739 (1993); Leigh A. Morrissey, State Courts Reject Leon on State Constitutional Grounds: A Defense of Reactive Rulings, 47 VAND. L. REV. 917 (1994); Richard E. Wegryn, Note, New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights: Symbolic Victor? 25 RUTGERS L.J. 183 (1993).
188. Utter, supra note 115, at 1047-50.
189. Maltz, supra note 114, at 437-38.
190. Id.
191. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890).
192. See, e.g., Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982); Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979); Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978). See also Dorothy T. Beasley, Federalism and the Protection of Individual Rights: The American State Constitutional Perspective, 121 GA. ST. U. L. REV. 681 (1995).
193. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991). See United States v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 643, 649 (1961); see, e.g., Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 549 (1985); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971); Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71 (1869); McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).
194. MORTON KELLER, AFFAIRS OF STATE: PUBLIC LIFE IN LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY AMERICA 111 (1977).
195. Id. at 112.
196. David O. Porter, The Ripper Clause in State Constitutional Law: An Early Urban Experiment - Part I, 1969 UTAH L. REV. 287, 306-11 (1969).
197. DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 3.
198. Henretta, supra note 86, at 829.
199. Id.
200. Id.
201. ROBERT F. WILLIAMS, STATE CONSTTTUTIONAL LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS 19 (2d ed. 1993).
202. Id.
203. Id.
204. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thomton, 115 S. Ct. 1842, 1872 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). See BEER, supra note 25, at 150-51; see also THE FEDERALIST No. 22, at 152 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (acknowledging the People as "that pure original fountain of all legitimate authority"); THE FEDERALIST No. 49, at 313 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) ("the people are the only legitimate fountain of power").
205. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thomton, 115 S. Ct. 1842, 1872 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). See BEER, supra note 25, at 150-51; see also THE FEDERALIST No. 22, at 152 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (acknowledging the People as "that pure original fountain of all legitimate authority"); THE FEDERALIST No. 49, at 313 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) ("the people are the only legitimate fountain of power").
206. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991).
207. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 410 (1819).
208. Henretta, supra note 86, at 821.
209. A.E. Dick Howard, The Values of Federalism, 1 NEW EUR. L. REV. 142, 145-56 (1993); Lewis B. Kaden, Politics, Money, and State Sovereignty: The Judicial Role, 79 COLUM. L. REV. 847, 853-57 (1979). See also ROBERT P. STOKER, RELUCTANT PARTNERS (1991).
210. A.E. Dick Howard, The Values of Federalism, 1 NEW EUR. L. REV. 142, 145-56 (1993); Lewis B. Kaden, Politics, Money, and State Sovereignty: The Judicial Role, 79 COLUM. L. REV. 847, 853-57 (1979). See also ROBERT P. STOKER, RELUCTANT PARTNERS (1991).
211. A.E. Dick Howard, The Values of Federalism, 1 NEW EUR. L. REV. 142, 145-56 (1993); Lewis B. Kaden, Politics, Money, and State Sovereignty: The Judicial Role, 79 COLUM. L. REV. 847, 853-57 (1979). See also ROBERT P. STOKER, RELUCTANT PARTNERS (1991).
212. See Larry Kramer, Understanding Federalism, 47 VAND. L. REV. 1485 (1994).
213. REDISH, supra note 36, at 99.
214. Id. at 25. See also Judith S. Kaye, State Courts at the Dawn of a New Century: Common Law Courts Reading Statutes and Constitutions, 70 N.Y.U.L. REV. 1 (1995).