From dualism to polyphony

Preemption Choice: The Theory, Law, and Reality of Federalism's Core Question

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 33-53

  Schapiro, Robert A ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927015229     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511552007.003     Document Type: Chapter

References (39)

1. Paul Brest et al., Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (New York: Aspen, 4th ed. 2000), 162.
2. Stephen Gardbaum, “New Deal Constitutionalism and the Unshackling of the States,” University of Chicago Law Review 64, no. 2 (1997): 483, 508.
3. William E. Leuchtenburg, The Supreme Court Reborn (New York: Oxford, 1995).
4. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 115 (1941).
5. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125 (1942).
6. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 128-9 (1942).
7. Gardbaum, G “New Deal Constitutionalism,” 537-8.
8. Michael A. Simons, “Prosecutorial Discretion and Prosecution Guidelines: A Case Study in Controlling Federalization,” New York University Law Review 75, no. 4 (2000): 893, 902-29.
9. Sara Sun Beale, “Too Many and Yet Too Few: New Principles to Define the Proper Limits for Federal Criminal Jurisdiction,” Hastings Law Journal 46, no. 4 (1995): 979, 993.
10. Adam Clymer, “National Briefing: House Passes Education Bill,” New York Times, December 14, 2001, A36.
11. Diana Jean Schemo, “Senate Approves a Bill to Expand the Federal Role in Public Education,” New York Times, December 19, 2001, A32.
12. James E. Ryan, “The Perverse Incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act,” New York University Law Review 79, no. 3 (2004): 932, 942-3.
13. James S. Liebman and Charles F. Sabel, “The Federal No Child Left Behind Act and the Post- Desegregation Civil Rights Agenda,” North Carolina Law Review 81, no. 4 (2003): 1703-1723.
14. James S. Liebman and Charles F. Sabel, “A Public Laboratory Dewey Barely Imagined: The Emerging Model of School Governance and Legal Reform,” N.Y.U. Review of Law and Social Change 28, no. 2 (2003): 183, 283-300.
15. Robert B. Ahdieh, “Dialectical Regulation,” Connecticut Law Review 38, no. 5 (2006): 872-5.
16. Judith Burns, “Mutual Funds under Fire,” Wall Street Journal, September 10, 2003, C14.
17. Jonathan Mathiesen, “Dr. Spitzlove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love ‘Balkanization’,” Columbia Business Review, no. 2 (2006): 311.
18. Kirsten H. Engel, “Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law,” Emory Law Journal 56, no. 1 (2006): 159.
19. Robert A. Schapiro, “Toward a Theory of Interactive Federalism,” Iowa Law Review 91, no. 1 (2005): 243, 288-90.
20. Michael C. Dorf and Charles F. Sabel, “A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism,” Columbia Law Review 98, no. 2 (1998): 267.
21. Robert M. Cover, “The Uses of Jurisdictional Redundancy: Interest, Ideology, and Innovation,” William andMary Law Review 22, no. 4 (1981): 639, 656-7.
22. Robert M. Cover and Alexander Aleinikoff, “Dialectical Federalism: Habeas Corpus and the Court,” Yale Law Journal 86, no. 6 (1977) 1035, 1042-6.
23. Martin Landau, “Federalism, Redundancy and System Reliability,” Publius 3, no. 2 (1973): 173, 188-9.
24. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 576 (1995).
25. Samuel Issacharoff and Catherine Sharkey, “Backdoor Federalization,” UCLA Law Review 53, no. 6 (2006): 1353, 1386-9.
26. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
27. Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996).
28. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
29. Garcia v. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528-556 (1985).
30. Julian N. Eule, “Laying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Rest,” Yale Law Journal 91, no. 3 (1982): 425.
31. Martin H. Redish and Shane V. Nugent, “The Dormant Commerce Clause and the Constitutional Balance of Federalism,” Duke Law Journal no. 4 (1987): 569.
32. Jim Chen, “A Vision Softly Creeping: Congressional Acquiescence and the Dormant Commerce Clause,” Minnesota Law Review 88, no. 6 (2004): 1764-1792.
33. Maxwell L. Stearns, “A Beautiful Mend: A Game Theoretical Analysis of the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine,” William and Mary Law Review 45, no. 1 (2003): 1, 10-11.
34. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504-517 (1992).
35. Caleb Nelson, “Preemption,” Virginia Law Review 86, no. 2 (2000): 225, 228-9.
36. Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies § 5.2 (New York: Aspen, 3rd ed. 2006), 412-16.
37. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiff’s Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001).
38. Daniel J. Meltzer, “The Supreme Court’s Judicial Passivity,” Supreme Court Review (2002): 343-366 (discussing Buckman).
39. Michael J. Bazyler, Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America’s Courts (New York: New York University Press, 2003), 110-11.