Dual Constitutions and Constitutional Duels: Separation of Powers and State Implementation of Federally Inspired Regulatory Programs and Standards

By Rossi, Jim | William and Mary Law Review, February 2005 | Go to article overview

Dual Constitutions and Constitutional Duels: Separation of Powers and State Implementation of Federally Inspired Regulatory Programs and Standards


Rossi, Jim, William and Mary Law Review


ABSTRACT

Frequently, state-wide executive agencies and localities attempt to implement federally inspired programs. Two predominant examples are cooperative federalism programs and incorporation of federal standards in state-specific law. Federally inspired programs can bump into state constitutional restrictions on the allocation of powers, especially in states whose constitutional systems embrace stronger prohibitions on legislative delegation than the weak restrictions at the federal level, where national goals and standards are made.

This Article addresses this tension between dual federal/state normative accounts of the constitutional allocation of powers in state implementation of federally inspired programs. To the extent the predominant ways of resolving the tension come from federal courts, state constitutionalism is challenged to produce its own account of its relevance in an era of federal programs. After surveying and critiquing the interpretative practices of state courts in dealing with these conflicting constitutional norms, the Article presents an institutional design account of state allocation of powers, which might better explain why states routinely suspend constitutional restrictions on delegation in the context of state implementation or federally inspired programs. The Article questions whether constitutional restrictions on legislative delegation have any normative basis in the context of state implementation of federally inspired programs, but also argues that it is important for state courts to answer this question as a matter of state constitutional interpretation--and not by ceding turf to federal courts under the Supremacy Clause or other federally imposed judicial interpretations.

**********

With the post-New Deal growth of federal power, states are increasingly called on to implement federal programs. In a variety of regulatory contexts--ranging from health, safety and environmental regulation to network infrastructure and transportation--Congress and federal regulators routinely look to state and local governments to implement federal programs and regulatory goals. Often the federal government offers a "carrot" for state or local compliance, providing funding for programs such as welfare, Medicaid, or public school standards and testing. States frequently take the silver, voluntarily acquiescing to federal programs or regulatory standards that bump up against state constitutional restrictions. (1)

Even outside of the context in which a state stands to benefit financially from adopting a federal program or standard--for example, where some state or local official voluntarily endorses it--state constitutions frequently present barriers to the implementation of federal goals or the adoption of federal standards. State decisions to participate in a federal program or to adopt a federal standard may involve constitutional rights, (2) but sometimes they will conflict directly with the allocation of powers between the branches or levels of government articulated in a state constitution as well. The prototypical scenario discussed in this Article is common under federal and state statutes. Often states are asked to adopt programs that rely on, implement, or incorporate federal statutes and regulations; frequently they choose to adopt these programs. For example, a state legislature's statute regulating water pollutants might rely on definitions or standards adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or may even explicitly incorporate EPA regulations or guidance documents into state law.

Dual constitutions--federal and state--produce the prospect of dueling substantive and procedural constitutional norms between the federal and state levels of government. Cooperative federalism programs, in which the federal government relies on states or localities to adopt and/or to implement a federal goal, might run into barriers under state constitutions. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Dual Constitutions and Constitutional Duels: Separation of Powers and State Implementation of Federally Inspired Regulatory Programs and Standards
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.