Advocates press for a national law on college hazing [ABA Journal]
Posts Tagged ‘federalism’
Michael Greve on the state fiscal crisis
“For operational purposes, ‘states’ are best understood as undercapitalized health care and pension funds that write speeding tickets on the side.” [Law and Liberty]
Here’s some money. Now ban cellphones in cars.
The federal government should keep its busy hands off local traffic laws — and that goes for bribing states to its will, as well as issuing direct orders. Today the House will debate a measure that would make that point by cutting off a fledgling program that would pay states for doing what “distracted driving” crusader and DoT secretary Ray LaHood lacks the constitutional authority or political capital to do directly. I explain in my new post at Cato at Liberty.
“Usually, to avoid detection…”
“…we [Judge Janice Rogers Brown and I] dress as Lillian Hellman and Yosemite Sam respectively.” — Michael Greve on his participation in the presumed conspiracy to restore the dreaded “Constitution in Exile” of pre-New Deal days. [Liberty and Law]
Soon-to-be Prof. Greve (he will be joining the George Mason law faculty after many years at AEI) was at Cato this week to discuss his remarkable new book, The Upside-Down Constitution. At the risk of damning with faint praise, I will say that his book is the most stimulating work I know of on the subject of federalism to have been published in my lifetime. If I could sum up his thesis, it would be that one of the past century’s gravest constitutional malfunctions has been that the states (not a misprint, he means the 50 states) have overrun their proper role in the constitutional scheme. More on his thesis here, here, and, on “Madison’s nightmare,” here. In all seriousness, I recommend The Upside-Down Constitution highly; although it’s demandingly complex in places, I can’t imagine reading it without one’s understanding of the constitution, and federalism in particular, being permanently changed.
Bring back federal common law
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) was the New Deal-era decision that directed federal courts to apply the law of the states in which they are located, and in so doing abolished a huge body of federal common law. In a new series of posts based on his book The Upside-Down Constitution, Michael Greve argues that Erie was wrongly decided and in practical terms a gigantic mistake that needs correcting. [Liberty and Law]
Bribing states to spend and regulate
In the earlier and sounder conception of federalism, local and national government were meant to check each other’s overweening power. Nowadays, unfortunately, the two often interact in a cooperative way to encourage bigger government at both levels, as Washington bribes the states to spend and regulate more. I explain at Cato at Liberty (& Damon Root, Reason).
February 8 roundup
- Popular proposal to curb Congressional insider trading (“STOCK Act”) could have disturbing unintended consequences [John Berlau, CEI “Open Market”] A contrary view: Bainbridge.
- Here’s Joe’s number, he’ll do a good job of suing us: “Some Maryland hospitals recommend lawyers to patients” [Baltimore Sun, Ron Miller]
- Bribing the states to spend: follies of our fiscal federalism, and other themes from Michael Greve’s new book The Upside-Down Constitution [LLL, more, yet more] “Atlas Croaks, Supreme Court Shrugs” [Greve, Charleston Law Review; related, Ted Frank]
- “… Daubert Relevancy is the Sentry That Guards Against the Tyranny of Experts” [David Oliver on new First Circuit opinion or scroll to Jan. 23]
- Goodbye old political tweets, Eric Turkewitz is off to trial;
- State laws squelch election speech, and political class shrugs (or secretly smiles) [George Will]
- Too bad Carlyle Group got scared off promising experiment to revamp corporate governance to curb role of litigation [Ted Frank, Gordon Smith] AAJ should try harder to use people’s quotes in context [Bainbridge]
June 30 roundup
- First Amendment wins as SCOTUS strikes down violent-videogame ban [Ilya Shapiro, Hans Bader] Justice Scalia cites “Snow White” and “Hansel and Gretel” [Ann Althouse]
- More Wal-Mart v. Dukes analysis [Schwartz, Althouse, Trask, Fisher, Beck, Sergio Campos/Prawfs] And aftermath for the litigants and others: ABA Journal (Pelosi wants legislative fix), CLP (plaintiffs), Reuters (law firm that’s won hundreds of millions in class actions complains it’s sunk $7 million into the case), Ted Frank (responding to that), Bay Citizen (“Foundations Could Pull Plug on Wal-Mart Suit”).
- “Would the REINS Act Rein In Federal Regulation?” [Jonathan Adler, Regulation magazine (PDF)]
- “Hypotheses Are Verified By Testing, Not By Submitting Them To Lay Juries For A Vote” [David Oliver; Drug and Device Law on denture cream product liability suit]
- Clash between federalism and some med mal reform proposals could have implications for ObamaCare battle [John Baker, Daily Caller; earlier]
- Dan Snyder Gets a Taste of D.C.’s New Anti-SLAPP Law [Citizen Media Law, earlier]
- Court skeptical of testimony of lap dance expert [Legal Blog Watch]
Medical liability reform: the federalism problem
It’s quite real, I argue at Cato at Liberty — and I try to draw some distinctions as to ways Congress could usefully address liability without inserting itself into the proper business of the state courts. More: Adler, Volokh; Reynolds, Instapundit, Turkewitz, Childs/TortsProf, Beck/Drug & Device Law.
Frontiers of federal criminalization
A case called Bond v. U.S., arising from an admittedly bizarre fact pattern involving a wife’s attempt to injure a romantic rival, provides an opportunity to test the limits of extension of federal criminal law into areas that would ordinarily serve as the occasion of state-level prosecution. The Cato Institute has filed an amicus brief urging a narrow view of the proper federal criminal role in the case, in pursuit of the view that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers. [Ilya Shapiro, Cato]