Altered states: Federalism and devolution at the “real” turn of the millennium

Cambridge Law Journal

Volumn 60, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 493-510

  O’Connor, Sandra Day ^a  

^a Supreme Court of the United States ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016742036     PISSN: 00081973     EISSN: 14692139     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0008197301001209     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. Proverbs 22:1.
2. See, e.g., Michael H. Lee, “Revolution, Evolution, Devolution: Confusion?” (2000) 23 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 465
3. Michael Burgess, “Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom: New Model or Mere Respray?” (1999) 40 S. Tex. L. Rev. 715
4. Robert Hazell, “Westminster: Squeezed From Above and Below”, in Robert Hazell (ed.), Constitutional Futures: A History of the Next Ten Years (1999).
5. Kermit L. Hall, “Introduction”, in Kermit L. Hall (ed.) Federalism: A Nation of States (1987), p. xi.
6. See, e.g., Vernon Bogdanor, Devolution in the United Kingdom (1999), p. 3
7. Burgess, note 2 above, at pp. 716–719.
8. Bogdanor, note 4 above, at p. 5.
9. See generally Devolution in the United Kingdom. at pp. 3–18.
10. A.V. Dicey, Law of the Constitution (E.C.S. Wade ed., 10th ed. 1959), pp. 39–40.
11. See generally Martin Loughlin, “Restructuring of Central-Local Government Relations”, in Jeffrey Jowell & Dawn Oliver (eds.), The Changing Constitution, 4th ed., (2000), pp. 137–164.
12. See Bogdanor, note 4 above, at pp. 44–45.
13. Hefin Rees, “Awakening the Welsh Dragon: Will the Creation of the National Assembly for Wales Make A Significant Difference to the Constitutional Arrangements Between England and Wales?” (2000) 23 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 459, 462–463.
14. See Scotland Act 1998
15. Government of Wales Act 1998
16. Northern Ireland Act 1998.
17. Burgess, note above 2, at pp. 722–723.
18. Northern Ireland Act at p. 723
19. Geoffrey Clark, “Scottish Devolution and the European Union” [1999] Pub. Law 505, 519–522.
20. Bogdanor, note 4 above, at p. 204.
21. Pub. Law at pp. 105–109
22. Winston Roddick, “Devolution–The United Kingdom and the New Wales” (2000) 23 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev., 477, 482–483
23. Burgess, note 2 above, at pp. 726–728.
24. Vernon Bogdanor, “Devolution and the British Constitution”, in David Butler et al. (eds.), The Law, Politics, and the Constitution (1999), pp. 71–72.
25. Roddick, note 15 above, at p. 482.
26. Burgess, note 2 above, at p. 724.
27. The Law, Politics, and the Constitution at pp. 724–725.
28. Bogdanor, note 4 above, at p. 3.
29. See, e.g., Bogdanor, note 16 above, at p. 55
30. Hazell, note 2 above, at p. 111.
31. See Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku, “Devolution: Conceptual and Implementational Problems” (2000) 29 Anglo-Am. L. Rev. 133, 161–162.
32. See, e.g., Bogdanor, note 16 above, at p. 61
33. Ian Leigh, Law, Politics, and Local Democracy (2000), pp. 27–28
34. Dawn Oliver & Gavin Drewry, “The law and Parliament”, in Dawn Oliver & Gavin Drewry (eds.) The Law and Parliament (1998) p. 2
35. but see Olowofoyeku, note 22 above, at p. 162.
36. 1 Cranch 137 (1803).
37. Lord Falconer of Thoroton Q.C., “The Role of the Courts in the Devolution and Human Rights Arrangements” (1999) 21 Liverpool L. Rev. 1, 1.
38. See Liverpool L. Rev. at pp. 10, 14.
39. Liverpool L. Rev. at p. 14.
40. Liverpool L. Rev. at p. 7.
41. See, e.g., Liverpool L. Rev. at p. 9
42. Paul Craig, “Constitutionalism, Regulation and Review”, in Constitutional Futures, above note 2, at p. 83
43. Jeffrey Jowell, “Of Vires and Vacuums” [1999] Pub. Law 448, 457–458.
44. Justice John Harlan, “Thoughts at a Dedication: Keeping the Judicial Function in Balance” (1963) 49 A.B.A.J. 943, 944.
45. United States v. Darby, 312 US 100, 124 (1941).
46. 1 Cranch 137 (1803).
47. See, e.g., Jesse H. Choper, Judicial Review and the National Political Process: A Functional Reconsideration of the Role of the Supreme Court (1980)
48. Herbert Wechsler, “The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government” (1954) 54 Colum. L. Rev. 543.
49. Cf. Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 US 528, 580–589 (1985) (O'Connor, J., dissenting)
50. see also John C. Yoo, “Judicial Review and Federalism” (1998) 22 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 197.
51. Cf. Irwin v. Gavit, 268 US 161, 168 (1925) (“Neither are we troubled by the question where to draw the line. That is the question in pretty much everything worth arguing in the law.”).
52. United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549, 578 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
53. See, egg., Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997)
54. Lopez, 514 US 549
55. New York v. United
56. States, 505 US 144 (1992).
57. Jason Beattie, “Devolution Helps the UK, says Cook” Scotsman, 20 April 2001, at p. 11
58. see also Bogdanor, note 4 above, at p. 296.
59. Beattie, note 44 above
60. See also Robert Hazell & Brendan O'Leary, “A Rolling Programme of Devolution: Slippery Slope or Safeguard of the Union”, in Constitutional Futures, note 2 above, at pp. 45–46
61. Bogdanor, note 4 above, at pp. 297–298.
62. Compare, e.g., Hazell & O'Leary, note 42 above, with Olowofoyeku, note 23 above.
63. “Why We Must Keep Our Aim”, S. Wales Evening Post, 30 October 2000, at p. 8.
64. See, e.g., Roddick, note 14 above, at pp. 479–480
65. Leigh, note 23 above, at pp. 23, 27.
66. See generally Leigh, note 24 above
67. See also Kevin Brown, “Shaping the Group Dynamics of the Assemblies: Regions Minister Says that English Devolution is Inevitable”, Financial Times, 9 April 2001, at p. 5.
68. Sir David Williams, “Constitutional Issues Facing the United Kingdom” (1999) 30 Law Libr. 13.
69. Law Libr. at p. 13.
70. Law Libr.
71. See generally Constitutional Futures, note 3 above.
72. See Robert Hazell & Richard Cornes, “Introduction”, in Constitutional Futures, note 2 above, at pp. 4–5.
73. Hall, note 3 above, at p. ix (quoting Blackstone)
74. Olowofoyeku, note 22 above, at pp. 165–166
75. Alan J. Ward, “Devolution: Labour's Strange Constitutional ‘Design’ ”, in The Changing Constitution, note 8 above, at p. 135.
76. Reimer von Borries & Malte Hauschild, “Implementing the Subsidiarity Principle” (1999) 5
77. Colum. J. Eur. L. 369, 370.
78. Edmund L. Andrews, “Germans Offer Plan to Remake European Union”, N.Y. Times,1May 2001, at A1.
79. See, e.g., Paul Craig & Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 2nd ed., (1998), p. 124
80. A.G. Toth, “A Legal Analysis of Subsidiarity”, in David O'Keeffe & Patrick M. Twomey (eds.) Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty (1994) 37.
81. Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty at p. 129.
82. See A.G. Toth, “Is Subsidiarity Justiciable?” (1994) 19 Eur. L. Rev. 268, 268–270.
83. See, e.g., W. Gary Vause, “The Subsidiarity Principle in European Union Law–American Federalism Compared” (1995) 27 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 61.
84. See generally William T. Hutchinson, “Unite to Divide; Divide to Unite: The Shaping of American Federalism” [1959] Miss. Valley Hist. Rev. 3, reprinted in Federalism: A Nation of States, note 4 above.
85. See, e.g., Hazell & O'Leary, note 42 above
86. Bogdanor, note 4 above, at pp. 294–298.
87. Deborah Z. Cass, “The Word that Saves Maastricht? The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Division of Powers within the European Community” (1992) 29 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1107.
88. Allison S. Russell, “Subsidiarity in European Union Law: Member State Morphine for the Painful Loss of Sovereignty” (1998) 11 Int'l L. Practicum 67.
89. Von Borries & Hauschild, note 54 above, at p. 369.
90. See, e.g., Toth, above note 58
91. Frank Vibert, “British Constitutional Reform and Europe”, in Constitutional Futures, note 2 above, at pp. 60–61
92. Paul Craig, “Britain in the European Union”, in The Changing Constitution, note 8 above, at p. 86.
93. See, e.g., Craig, note 65 above, at pp. 72–79
94. A.W. Bradley, “The Sovereignty of Parliament– Form or Substance?”, in The Changing Constitution, note 8 above, at pp. 43–46
95. Bogdanor, note 16 above, at p. 63.
96. Falconer, note 25 above, at pp. 5–6
97. See generally Stephen Grosz et al., Human Rights, The 1998 Act and the European Convention (2000).
98. Lord Lester of Herne Hill, “Human Rights and the British Constitution”, in The Changing Constitution, note 8 above, at pp. 99–110.
99. 505 US, at p. 157.
100. See, e.g., Roddick, note 14 above, at pp. 479–481
101. Olowofoyeku, note 22 above, at pp. 135–136.
102. See Bogdanor, note 4 above, at pp. 193–196.
103. See, e.g., Roddick, note 14 above, at pp. 479–480
104. Burgess, note 2 above, at pp. 719–721.
105. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 US 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
106. Cf. The Federalist No. 28 (Alexander Hamilton).
107. See generally A.E. Dick Howard, “The Values of Federalism” (1993) 1 New Eur. L. Rev. 143.