pl
Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Studia Iuridica

How Federalism Can Promote a National Commitment to the Rule of Law

2019, 79, Numer 1

Robert A. Schapiro

0000-0001-9873-2303

Emory University

DOI

10.5604/01.3001.0013.1891

Data publikacji

12.05.2019

Model publikowania

open access

Rodzaj licencji

CC BY 4.0 Int.

Dziedzina

Prawo

Dyscyplina

nauki prawne

Język publikacji

Angielski

Pliki do pobrania

PDF 388 KB

Artykuł

Liczba wyświetleń:172

Liczba pobrań:59

Cytowania Crossref:0

Wynik Altmetric:0

Abstrakt

Promoting the rule of the law is a national responsibility. The obligation to ensure legality and advance human rights rests on the national government. This article analyzes how federalism, a system of distributing power among subnational entities, can promote this national goal. The article explores how states in the United States have played an important role in encouraging the federal government to enforce the law and safeguard rights. By means of resistance, cooperation, and redundancy, states have moved the United States closer to rule-of-law ideals. The state action sometimes takes the form of litigation, with states bringing suit against the federal government. Such suits have particular significance in challenging illegal inaction by the national government, as when the federal government fails to enforce environmental laws. Litigation by states may overcome standing barriers that would limit such suits by private individuals. States may also engage in direct action by pursuing their own policies that promote the rule of law. In these areas, the states may oppose the federal government, cooperate with the federal government, or act in an independent, parallel manner. What unites all of these modes and instruments of state-federal interaction is that the goal of states is to influence national policy. The state action may begin within the boundaries of a particular state, but what motivates the state initiative is a vision applicable to the nation as a whole. The ultimate aim of state action is not local divergence, but national uniformity. Federalism serves not as a license for local deviation from national norms, but instead as a means for states to engage actively in creating policy at a national level. In this way, independent state activity can indeed promote the national obligation to promote the rule of law throughout the country.

Słowa kluczowe:

federalism,Rule of Law,standing,federalizm,praworządność

Bibliografia

Astor M., Seven States, Led by Texas, Sue to End DACA Program, “New York Times” 2 May 2018, A14.

Becerra X., Fighting Federal Rollbacks, State of California Department of Justice website https://oag.ca.gov/environment/rollbacks (visited February 25, 2019)

Bulman-Pozen J., Gerken H. K., Uncooperative Federalism, “Yale Law Journal” 2009, Vol. 118.

Dworkin R., A Matter of Principle, Cambridge, Mass. 1985.

Ellis M., Toward a Common Ground Definition of the Rule of Law Incorporating Substantive Principles of Justice, “University of Pittsburgh Law Review” 2010, Vol. 72.

Engel K., State and Local Climate Change Initiatives: What Is Motivating State and Local Governments to Address a Global Problem and What Does This Say About Federalism and Environmental Law?, “Urban Lawyer” 2006, Vol. 38.

Hart A., From Birth Control to the Border Wall: 17 Ways California Sued the Trump Administration in 2017, “Sacramento Bee” 19 December 2017, available at https://www. sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article188901094.html (visited March 2, 2019)

Kang C., California Lawmakers Pass Nation’s Toughest Net Neutrality Law, “New York Times” 1 September 2018, A1.

Kang C., F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules, “New York Times” 15 December 2017, A1.

Kang C., Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law, “New York Times” 1 October 2018, A14.

Kopan T., What Are Sanctuary Cities, and Can They Be Defunded?, CNN.com 26 March 2018.

Lasch Ch. N. et al., Understanding ‘Sanctuary Cities’, “Boston College Law Review” 2018, Vol. 59.

Liptak A., Trump v. California: The Biggest Legal Clashes, “New York Times” 6 April 2018, A18.

Nash J. R., Sovereign Preemption State Standing, “Northwestern University Law Review” 2017, Vol. 112.

Satija N. et al., Texas vs. the Feds – A Look at the Lawsuits, “Texas Tribune” 17 January 2018, available at https://www.texastribune.org/2017/01/17/texas-federal-government-lawsuits/ (visited February 25, 2019)

Schapiro R. A., From Dualist Federalism to Interactive Federalism, “Emory Law Journal” 2006, Vol. 56.

Schapiro R. A., Judicial Federalism and The Challenges of State Constitutional Contestation, “Penn State Law Review” 2011, Vol. 115.

Schapiro R. A, Not Old or Borrowed: The Truly New Blue Federalism, “Harvard Law & Pol’y Review” 2009, Vol. 3.

Schapiro R., Polyphonic Federalism. Toward the Protection of Fundamental Rights. Chicago 2009.

Schlager E. et al. (eds.), Navigating Climate Change Policy: The Opportunities of Federalism, Tucson 2011.

Tabuchi H., Davenport C., California Sues Trump Administration Over Car Emissions Rules, “New York Times” 2 May 2018, A17.

Philip J. Weiser, Towards a Constitutional Architecture for Cooperative Federalism, “North Carolina Law Review” 2001, Vol. 79.

World Justice Project, Factors of the Rule of Law, available at: https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-rule-law-index-2017%E2%80%932018/ factors-rule-law (visited February 19, 2019)

Podobne publikacje