Resolution VI: The virginia plan and authority to resolve collective action problems under article I, section 8

Notre Dame Law Review

Volumn 87, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 2123-2164

  Lash, Kurt T ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867123968     PISSN: 07453515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 411 (1819)
2. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 195 (1824)
3. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 616 n.7, 617-18 (2000)
4. United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949, 1967-68 (2010)
5. Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism 906 (2011)
6. Jack M. Balkin, Commerce, 109 Mich. L. Rev. 1, 6-15 (2010)
7. Robert D. Cooter & Neil S. Siegel, Collective Action Federalism: A General Theory of Article I, Section 8, 63 Stan. L. Rev. 115, 123 (2011)
8. Andrew Koppelman, Bad News for Mail Robbers: The Obvious Constitutionality of Health Care Reform, 121 Yale L.J. Online 1, 12 (2011)
9. David M. Metres, Note, The National Impact Test: Applying Principled Commerce Clause Analysis to Federal Environmental Regulation, 61 Hastings L.J. 1035, 1051 (2010)
10. Stephen F. Williams, Preemption: First Principles, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. 323, 326 (2009)
11. Donald H. Regan, Horn to Think About the Federal Commerce Power and Incidentally Rewrite United States v. Lopez, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 554, 555 (1995)
12. Brief of Amicus Curiae Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Appellees and Affirmance at 6, Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (No. 11-5047) 2011 WL
13. Brief of Amici Curiae State Legislators in Support of Defendants-Appellants at 3, 10-11
14. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs. v. Florida, 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011)
15. Brief of Amicus Curiae Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Appellant and Reversal at 4
16. Virginia v. Sebelius, 656 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2011)
17. Jack M. Balkin, The Reconstruction Power, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1801, 1809 (2010)
18. Compare Robert L. Stern, That Commerce Which Concerns More States Than One, 47 Harv. L. Rev. 1335, 1337-38, 1366 (1934)
19. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 257-58 (1936)
20. 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).
21. 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824).
22. Compare, e.g., Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 269-70 (1918)
23. xvith United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 113 (1941)
24. Harlan B. Phillips, Feux Frankfurter Reminisces 166 (Harlan B. Phillips ed., 1960).
25. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 568 (1995)
26. Wickard v. Filburn, 317U.S. Ill, 120 (1942)
27. Gibbons, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 203
28. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 566 (1995)
29. McCulloch, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 421
30. Gibbons, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 193
31. U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
32. Stephen Breyer, Making Our Democracy Work: The Yale Lectures, 120 Yale L.J. 1999, 2024 (2011)
33. Gibbons, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 195.
34. Gibbons, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 203
35. McCulloch, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 411
36. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 566 (1995)
37. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 616 n.7, 617-18 (2000)
38. United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949, 1967-68 (2010)
39. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 174-77 (1992)
40. United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949, 1967-68 (2010)
41. Lawrence B. Solum, What is Originalism? The Evolution of Contemporary Originalist Theory, in The Challenge of Originalism 12, 12
42. Larry Alexander & Saikrishna Prakash, "Is That English You're Speaking?" Why Intention Free Interpretation Is an Impossibility, 41 San Diego L. Rev. 967, 976 (2004)
43. Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding, 60 B.U. L. Rev. 204, 204-05 (1980)
44. H. Jefferson Powell, The Original Understanding of Original Intent, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 885, 885-86 (1985).
45. Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings 13 (1996).
46. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 585 (2008)
47. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010)
48. Elizabeth B. Wydra, An Originalist Defense of Health Care Reform, Constitutional Accountability Center (Mar. 8, 2011), http://www. theusconstitution.org/ blog.history/?p=2824
49. James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, Comprising His Public Papers & His Private Correspondence, Including His Numerous Letters & Documents Now for the First Time Printed (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1900), available at http:/ /oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com-staticxt&staticfile=show. php%3Ftitle=1935&chap-ter=118621&layout=html&Itemid=27 (last visited Mar. 7, 2012).
50. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia, app. D (Augustus M. Kelley 1969) (1803).
51. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, § 925 (Fred. B. Rothman & Co. 1991) (1833).
52. Peter Du Ponceau, A Brief View of the Constitution of the United States (1834)
53. The Emp'rs Liab. Cases, 207 U.S. 463, 521 (1908) (Moody, J., dissenting).
54. 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1820)
55. 298 U.S. 238 (1936).
56. Brief for the United States at 94 n.41, A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
57. Lawrence B. Solum, The Interpretation-Construction Distinction, 27 Const. Comment. 95, 100-08 (2010)
58. Lawrence B. Solum, Semantic Originalism 13-24 (111. Pub. Law & Legal Theory Res. Papers Series, Paper No. 07-24, 2008), available at http://papers.ssm.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=l 120244 (last visited Mar. 10, 2012).
59. John Taylor, Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated 21-23 (Lawbook Exch. 1998) (1820)
60. Kurt T. Lash, Leaving the Chisholm Trail: The Eleventh Amendment and the Background Principle of Strict Construction, 50 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1577, 1604 (2009)
61. U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 12.
62. Lawrence B. Solum, Legal Theory lexicon: Concepts & Conceptions, Legal Theory Bloc (Jan. 2, 2011, 10:16 AM), http://lsolum.typepad. com/legaltheory/2011/01/legal-theory-lexicon-concepts-conceptions.html.
63. U.S. Const, art. I, § 3, cl. 1.
64. Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution 16 (2006).
65. U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 3.
66. Alexander M. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 111-98 (2d ed. 1986).
67. Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution 53 (2004)
68. Robert G. Natelson & David Kopel, Commerce in the Commerce Clause: A Response to Jack Balkin, 109 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 55, 59 (2010)
69. Grant S. Nelson & Robert J. Pushaw, Jr., Rethinking the Commerce Clause: Applying First Principles to Uphold Federal Commercial Regulations but Preserve State Control Over Social Issues, 85 Iowa L. Rev. 1, 39-40 (1999).
70. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 576-628 (2008)
71. Forrest McDonald, E Pluribus Unum 286-302 (2d ed. 1979).
72. Mark Moller, A New Look at the Original Meaning of the Diversity Clause, 51 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1113, 1170 & n.212 (2009).
73. Thomas Lloyd. This version is also reproduced in 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 350, 355 (Merrill Jensen ed., 1976) [hereinafter DHRC].
74. Pauline Maier, Ratification 77-82 (2010).
75. Henry Paul Monaghan, We the People[s], Original Understanding, and Constitutional Amendment, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 121, 140-43 (1996)
76. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 457-58 (1793)
77. The Federalist No. 39, at 246
78. Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty 32 (2009).
79. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 195 (1824).
80. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 38 (2005)
81. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 567-68 (1994).
82. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 405 (1819).