Polyphonic federalism: The United States experience

The Future of Australian Federalism: Comparative and Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 141-156

  Schapiro, Robert A ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925621850     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511902550.010     Document Type: Chapter

References (27)

1. B. Cushman, Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution(New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998)
2. B. Cushman, ‘Formalism and Realism in Commerce Clause Jurisprudence’ (2000) 67 University of Chicago Law Review1089.
3. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 US 528 (1985).
4. J. Choper, Judicial Review and the National Political Process: A Functional Reconsideration of the Role of the Supreme Court(University of Chicago Press, 1980), pp. 175–84
5. H. Wechsler, ‘The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government’ (1954) 54 Columbia Law Review543.
6. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority(above n. 6).
7. United States v. Morrison, 529 US 598 (2000) (Violence Against Women Act 1994)
8. United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995) (Gun-Free School Zones Act 1990).
9. Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (2006)
10. R. A. Schapiro, ‘Not Old or Borrowed: The Truly New Blue Federalism’ (2009) 3 Harvard Law and Policy Review33.
11. K. H. Engel, ‘Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law’ (2006) 56 Emory Law Journal159.
12. J. Bulman-Pozen and H. K. Gerken, ‘Uncooperative Federalism’ (2009) 118 Yale Law Journal1256.
13. R. A. Schapiro, Polyphonic Federalism: Toward the Protection of Fundamental Rights(University of Chicago Press, 2009).
14. American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, 539 US 396, 402 (2003).
15. Y. Benkler, ‘Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm’ (2002) 112 Yale Law Journal369, 423
16. M. Landau, ‘Redundancy, Rationality, and the Problem of Duplication and Overlap’ (1969) 29 Public Administration Review346.
17. R. A. Schapiro, ‘Monophonic Preemption’ (2008) 102 Northwestern University Law Review811, 820–1
18. Engel, ‘Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law’ (above n. 13), 168–9.
19. W. W. Buzbee, ‘Asymmetrical Regulation: Risk, Preemption, and the Floor/Ceiling Distinction’ (2007) 82 New York University Law Review1547.
20. United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549, 576 (1995) (Kennedy J., concurring)
21. United States v. Morrison, 529 US 598, 611 (2000)
22. E. Rubin, ‘The Myth of Accountability and the Anti-Administrative Impulse’ (2005) 103 Michigan Law Review2073, 2083–91, discussing the ‘implausibility’ of assumptions underlying the concerns for accountability.
23. J. S. Liebman and C. F. Sabel, ‘The Federal No Child Left Behind Act and the Post- Desegregation Civil Rights Agenda’ (2003) 81 North Carolina Law Review1703, 1721–3.
24. P. E. Peterson and M. R. West (eds.) No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice of School Accountability(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2003).
25. Schapiro, Polyphonic Federalism(above n. 15), p. 39.
26. Florida v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011), cert. granted, No. 11-400, 2011 WL 5515163 (U.S. Nov. 14, 2011).
27. M. Cooper and M. Williams Walsh, ‘Mounting Debts by States Stoke Fears of Crisis’, New York Times(5 December 2010), p. A1.