Law, politics and the new federalism: State attorneys general as national policymakers

The Review of Politics

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 1994, Pages 525-553

  Clayton, Cornell W ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84959671823     PISSN: 00346705     EISSN: 17486858     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0034670500018945     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. A. King, ed., The New American Political System (Washington D.C.: AEI, 1978).
2. J. Chubb and P. Peterson, eds., The New Direction in American Politics (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1985).
3. B. Ginsberg and M. Shefter, Politics By Other Means (New York: Basic, 1990).
4. A. King, ed., The Neiv American Political Tradition. Second Version (Washington, D.C.: AEI, 1992).
5. C. Clayton, The Politics of Justice: The Attorney General and the Making of Legal Policy (New York: Sharpe, 1992).
6. N. Baker, Conflicting Loyalties: Law and Politics in the Attorney General's Office (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1992).
7. R. Salokar, The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992).
8. L. Caplan, The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law (New York: Vintage, 1987).
9. M. Derthick, “Preserving Federalism: Congress, the States, and the Supreme Court”, Brookings Review 4 (1986): 32.
10. R. Nathan and F. Doolittle, Reagan and the States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987).
11. J. Herbers, “The New Federalism: Unplanned, Innovative, and Here to Stay,” Governing 1 (1987): 28.
12. M. Fix and D. Kenyon, eds., Coping with Mandates: What Are the Alternatives (Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1990).
13. T. Conlan, “And the Beat Goes On: Intergovernmental Mandates and Preemption in an Era of Deregulation,” Publius 21 (1991): 43.
14. J. Edwards, The Law Offices of the Crown (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1964), pp. 9-15.
15. C. Yeager and L. Hargrave, “The Power of the Attorney General to Supersede a District Attorney,” Louisiana Law Review 51 (1991): 733-754.
16. Lynn Ross, ed., State Attorneys General: Powers and Responsibilities (Washington D.C.: NAAG, 1990).
17. J. Selig, “The Reagan Justice Department: What Went Wrong?” University of Illinois Law Review 1985: 785.
18. A. Bowman and M. Pagano, “The State of American Federalism,” Publius 20 (1990): 1.
19. G. Peterson, “Federalism and the States: An Experiment in Decentralization”, in Palmer and Sawhili, eds., The Reagan Record (Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1984).
20. L. Thornburg, “Changes in the States Law Firm: The Powers, Duties and Operations of the Office of Attorney General,” Campbell Law Review 12 (1990): 343.
21. W. Webster, “The Emerging Role of State Attorneys General,” Washburn Law Journal 30 (1990): 1.
22. R. Waterman, Presidential Influence and the Administrative State (Knoxville: Tennessee University Press, 1987).
23. R. Nathan, The Administrative Presidency (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983).
24. A. Bowman and R. Kearney, The Resurgence of States (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986).
25. R. Kearney and R. Sheehan, “Supreme Court Decision Making: The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation,” The Journal of Politics 54 (1992): 1008.
26. T. Morris, “States Before the Federal Courts,” Judicature 70 (1987): 298.
27. Emmitt H. Carlton, Jr., Consumer Protection Counsel Business Regulation Project, NAAG, in Washington D.C., 3 September 1993.
28. S. Baker and J. Asperger, “Towards a Center for State and Local Legai Advocacy,” Catholic University Law Review 31 (1982): 367.
29. J. Segal, “Amicus Curiae Briefs by the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts,” Western Political Science Quarterly 41 (1988): 135.
30. K. O'Connor, “The Amicus Curiae Role of the United States Solicitor General,” Judicature 66 (1983): 256.
31. J. Zimmerman, “Federal Preemption Under Reagan's New Federalism,” Publius 21 (Winter 1991): 7.