Legislation

2021 ◽  
pp. 105-133
Author(s):  
Max M. Edling
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Member States ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Native American Diplomacy ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
American Union ◽  
American State

The first federal Congresses implemented the US Constitution by turning the constitutional text into the policies and institutions of the federal government. Under the Washington administration (1789–1797) federal legislation was overwhelmingly concerned with foreign affairs, international commerce, the federal territories in the trans-Appalachian West, Native American diplomacy and trade, and relations between the member-states in the American union. Other than the post office, hardly any laws were adopted to regulate social and economic relations within the member-states of the American federal union. Congress’s record in the period stands in marked contrast with that of both American state legislatures, such as Pennsylvania, and legislatures of unitary states, such as Great Britain, which were much more concerned with domestic issue legislation. In the bisected American state, there was a distribution of authority between a federal government in charge of international and intraunion affairs and state governments in charge of domestic affairs.

Internal Police

2021 ◽  
pp. 75-104
Author(s):  
Max M. Edling
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The State ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Police Powers ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
American Union ◽  
Shed Light

The US Constitution reserved to the member-states of the American federal union the power to regulate their internal police. Now largely forgotten, but much in use in the decades surrounding the American founding, the term internal police described an extensive range of activities that eighteenth-century states did to regulate their societies and their economies. By recovering the illusive meaning of internal police and by studying how the Constitution distributed internal police powers between Congress and the state governments, it is possible to shed light on how the Constitution divided political authority between the states and the federal government in the American union. The analysis in this chapter shows that under the Constitution, domestic affairs in the early United States was overwhelmingly meant to be regulated by the state governments and not the federal government.

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Max M. Edling
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Socioeconomic Development ◽  
State System ◽  
State Governments ◽  
American Founding ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
American State

In recent years a new Unionist interpretation of the American founding has presented the US Constitution as a compact of union between sovereign states, which allowed them to maintain interstate peace and to act in unison as a single nation vis-à-vis other nations in the international state-system. Such an understanding of the American founding argues that the Constitution created a bisected American state divided into a federal government in charge of international and intraunion affairs and state governments in charge of promoting socioeconomic development and maintaining civic rights. The introduction provides an overview of different interpretations of the founding and of the structure of the book.

Foreign Affairs Federalism in the European Union

2019 ◽  
pp. 331-351
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Treaty Of Rome ◽  
Formed Part ◽  
Mixed Agreements

The European Union was born as an international organization. The 1957 Treaty of Rome formed part of international law, although the European Court of Justice was eager to emphasize that the Union constitutes “a new legal order” of international law. With time, this new legal order has indeed evolved into a true “federation of States.” Yet how would the foreign affairs powers of this new supranational entity be divided? Would the European Union gradually replace the member states, or would it preserve their distinct and diverse foreign affairs voices? In the past sixty years, the Union has indeed significantly sharpened its foreign affairs powers. While still based on the idea that it has no plenary power, the Union’s external competences have expanded dramatically, and today it is hard to identify a nucleus of exclusive foreign affairs powers reserved for the member states. And in contrast to a classic international law perspective, the Union’s member states only enjoy limited treaty-making powers under European law. Their foreign affairs powers are limited by the exclusive powers of the Union, and they may be preempted through European legislation. There are, however, moments when both the Union and its states enjoy overlapping foreign affairs powers. For these situations, the Union legal order has devised a number of cooperative mechanisms to safeguard a degree of “unity” in the external actions of the Union. Mixed agreements constitute an international mechanism that brings the Union and the member states to the same negotiating table. The second constitutional device is internal to the Union legal order: the duty of cooperation.

scholarly journals Industrial legislation in Australia, 2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 002218562110082
Author(s):  
Eugene Schofield-Georgeson
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Labour Market ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Construction Industry ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
State Governments ◽  
The Past ◽  
Wage Theft ◽  
Economic Stimulus ◽  
Liberal Government

In 2020, the Federal Morrison Liberal Government scrambled to respond to the effects of the international coronavirus pandemic on the Australian labour market in two key ways. First, through largescale social welfare and economic stimulus (the ‘JobKeeper’ scheme) and second, through significant proposed reform to employment laws as part of a pandemic recovery package (the ‘Omnibus Bill’). Where the first measure was administered by employers, the second was largely designed to suspend and/or redefine labour protections in the interests of employers. In this respect, the message from the Federal Government was clear: that the costs of pandemic recovery should be borne by workers at the discretion of employers. State Labor Governments, by contrast, enacted a range of industrial protections. These included the first Australia ‘wage theft’ or underpayment frameworks on behalf of both employees and contractors in the construction industry. On-trend with state industrial legislation over the past 4 years, these state governments continued to introduce industrial manslaughter offences, increased access to workers’ compensation, labour hire licensing schemes and portable long service leave.

The Significance of Unaccounted Currencies

1981 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 853-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Timberlake
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Private Business ◽  
Exact Quantification ◽  
Bank Notes

This paper uses numismatic sources to estimate the volume of unaccounted currency issued during the middle two quarters of the nineteenth century. “Unaccounted currency” includes any currency issued by private business firms and by municipal and state governments. This money, unlike state bank notes and deposits and federal government currencies, was issued illegally, and not recorded in conventional statistical sources. Exact quantification, therefore, is next to impossible. The principal significance of this phenomenon is the credibility it gives to private competitive issues of money.

Neoliberal reformers: Economics as class warfare

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-262
Author(s):  
Braham Dabscheck
Keyword(s):  
Federal Government ◽  
Nobel Prize ◽  
Business Groups ◽  
Review Article ◽  
The State ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
State Governments ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Jel Codes ◽  
Federal Level

This review article discusses MacLean’s study of the ideas of a group of economists and their embracing by an oligarchy of business groups to implement a Neoliberal agenda and its implications for American democracy. It mainly focuses on the Nobel Prize winning economist James McGill Buchanan and the industrialist Charles Koch. Business groups provided funds to Buchanan and others to train right-minded people in the precepts of Neoliberalism, established think tanks and institutes to disseminate their views, and ‘directed’ and/or provided advice and draft legislation for Republican politicians at both the state and federal level. Inspiration for how to achieve this Neoliberal ‘revolution’ can be found in Lenin’s 1902 What is to be Done?. The Neoliberal attack on government and statism is consistent with Orwell’s notion of doublethink. It constitutes a weakening of those parts of the state which are inimical to the interests of a wealthy oligarchy, the federal government and agencies/government departments who are viewed as imposing costs (taxes) on and interfering with (regulating) the actions of the oligarchy, and strengthening other parts such as state governments, the judiciary, at both the state (especially) and federal level and police forces to protect and advance their interests. JEL codes: B10, B22

Comment

1980 ◽  
Vol 2 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 108-109
Author(s):  
Mark Kesselman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Local Government ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Local Autonomy ◽  
Fundamental Change ◽  
Local Expenditures

Acentral ingredient of democracy in the United States, according to Tocqueville, was local autonomy – yet the data presented by Professor Austin suggests a fundamental change in the United States since Tocquevilles time. Most local expenditures are now provided by the federal and state governments, most “local” programs are not local at all, for many (if not most) purposes the local government has become an extension of the federal government, and it is often replaced altogether by federally created field agencies (what the French call deconcentrated administration).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document