Law Commons^™

In States We "Trust": Self-Settled Trusts, Public Policy, And Interstate Federalism, Brendan Duffy

Northwestern University Law Review

Over the last twenty years, domestic asset protection trusts have risen in popularity as a means of estate planning and asset protection. A domestic asset protection trust is an irrevocable trust formed under state law which enables an independent trustee to allocate money to a class of

persons, which includes the settlor.

Since Alaska first enacted domestic asset protection legislation in 1997, fifteen states have followed its lead. The case law over the last twenty years addressing these trust mechanisms has, however, been surprisingly sparse. A Washington bankruptcy court decision, In re Huber, altered this drought, but caused more confusion …

One Federalism And The Judicial Role: Enforcing The Limits Of Article I, Alexa R. Baltes

Notre Dame Law Review

Part I of this Note offers a brief account of the two main theories of

federalism protection: the political safeguards (or process federalism) and

judicial review. Part II then suggests a dual-safeguards approach as the single

constitutionally grounded theory, and proceeds to situate the procedural

safeguards and, importantly, judicial review, in the history, text, and structure

of the Constitution. Next, delving into the Court’s New Federalism line of

decisions, Part III analyzes the implications for these two constitutionally

grounded safeguards to deduce the proper framework for their respective

applications. It suggests that while political safeguards may be conceived in

terms …

Book Review: Foreign Affairs And The Constitution. By Louis Henkin. Mineola, N.Y.: The Foundation Press, 1972. Pp. 553. $11.50., Carl Marcy

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Implementing Enumeration, Andrew Coan

William & Mary Law Review

The enumeration of legislative powers in Article I of the U.S. Constitution implies that those powers must have limits. This familiar “enumeration principle” has deep roots in American constitutional history and has played a central role in recent federalism decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Courts and commentators, however, have seldom rigorously considered what follows from embracing it. The answer is by no means straightforward. The enumeration principle tells us that federal power must be subject to some limit, but it does not tell us what that limit should be. Nor does it tell us how the Constitution’s commitment to …

Of Swords, Shields, And A Gun To The Head: Coercing Individuals, But Not States, Aviam Soifer

Seattle University Law Review

This Article begins with a brief reprise of what should be a textual “gotcha” about the Enforcement Clauses of the post-Civil War Amendments—if our current Supreme Court Justices actually cared about original texts, originalism, or a combination of the two. Next, the Article focuses on the gnarled issue of “coercion.” It argues that, contrary to a great deal of Anglo-American legal doctrine, coercion is best understood along a spectrum rather than as a binary phenomenon. Coercion is actually much contested and highly contextual across many legal categories. Federal coercion—also described as commandeering or dragooning— has become a particular constitutional focus …

The Federalism Cases, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

North Carolina State Board Of Dental Examiners V. Ftc: Aligning Antitrust Law With Commerce Clause Jurisprudence Through A Natural Shift Of State-Federal Balance Of Power, Marie Forney

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court’s holding in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC (NC Dental)1 in February 2015 demonstrates a natural shift in the balance of power from the states to the national government. As the country’s interstate and international economy has become more integrated, federal authority has likewise expanded.2 And although the federalism dichotomy has undergone periodic back-and-forth “swings” since the nation’s founding, the end result has been a net increase in federal power. NC Dental exemplifies this trend toward increasing national au-thority through the organic development of interstate commerce.

The Extraterritoriality Doctrine Of The Dormant Commerce Clause Is Not Dead, Susan Lorde Martin

Marquette Law Review

In 1895, the New York Court of Appeals, in refusing to enforce a Kansas statute, referred to “a principle of universal application, recognized in all civilized states, that the statutes of one state have . . . no force or effect in another.” In 1897, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky noted that “[t]he statute of another state has, of course, no extraterritorial force.” That old notion describes the extraterritoriality doctrine of the dormant Commerce Clause. In recent years, the doctrine has become problematic for several reasons. One, the line between intrastate and interstate business has become blurred with many …

Black-Box Immigration Federalism, David S. Rubenstein

Michigan Law Review

In Immigration Outside the Law, Hiroshi Motomura confronts the three hardest questions in immigration today: what to do about our undocumented population, who should decide, and by what legal process. Motomura’s treatment is characteristically visionary, analytically rich, and eminently fair to competing views. The book’s intellectual arc begins with its title: “Immigration Outside the Law.” As the narrative unfolds, however, Motomura explains that undocumented immigrants are “Americans in waiting,” with moral and legal claims to societal integration.

Congress And The Reconstruction Of Foreign Affairs Federalism, Ryan Baasch, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash

Michigan Law Review

Though the Constitution conspicuously bars some state involvement in foreign affairs, the states clearly retain some authority in foreign affairs. Correctly supposing that state participation may unnecessarily complicate or embarrass our nation’s foreign relations, the Supreme Court has embraced aggressive preemption doctrines that sporadically oust the states from discrete areas in foreign affairs. These doctrines are unprincipled, supply little guidance, and generate capricious results. Fortunately, there is a better way. While the Constitution permits the states a limited and continuing role, it never goes so far as guaranteeing them any foreign affairs authority. Furthermore, the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact …