Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Bleacher Report


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Liver Kick


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Yahoo MMA Blog


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


Sherdog Radio


Eddie Goldman


Video Corner


Fight Hub


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

Agreements between Two or More States

By Zach Arnold | January 25, 2022

Print Friendly and PDF

For many years after the adoption of the constitution, border disputes dominated as a subject of agreements between states. Since the turn of the century, however, the Intergovernmental Pact has been increasingly used as an instrument of state cooperation in implementing positive programs to solve common problems.11FootnoteFrankfurter and Landis, The Compact Clause of the Constitution: A Study in Interstate Adjustments, 34 Yale L.J. 685 (1925); F. Zimmerman and M. Wendell, Interstate Compacts Since 1925 (1951); F. Zimmerman and M. Wendell, The Law and Use of Interstate Compacts (1961). The implementation of broad public commitments, such as the port authority`s development of the Port of New York Created by the New York-New Jersey Pact, flood protection, pollution prevention, and the conservation and allocation of water supplied by interstate waterways are among the objectives achieved in this way. Another important use of this device was recognized by Congress in the Act of June 6, 1934,12Footnote48 Stat.

909 (1934). by which it accepted anti-crime agreements in advance. The first response to this incentive was the 1934 Crime Covenant, which provided for the supervision of probation officers and probation officers, to which most states adhered.13FootnoteF. Zimmerman and M. Wendell, Interstate Compacts Since 1925 91 (1951). Subsequently, Congress approved, under various conditions, pacts concerning tobacco production, natural gas conservation, regulation of fishing in inland waters, promotion of flood and pollution protection, and other matters. In addition, many States have established standing commissions for intergovernmental cooperation, which have resulted in the formation of a Council of State Governments, the establishment of special commissions to investigate the problem of crime, the problem of road safety, the problem of trailers, the problems caused by social security legislation and the development of uniform State legislation to address some of these problems. have.14Footnote7 U.S.C§ 515; 15 U.S.C§ 717j; 16 U.S.C§ 552; 33 U.S.C. §§ 11, 567-567b. The extensive experience of the NCIC has enabled the development of a comprehensive and proven methodology for successful cooperation with States in the elaboration and implementation of compacts. To learn more about the law and the use of intergovernmental covenants, click on the following resources. Interstate agreements require the approval of the U.S.

Congress. There are three main ways in which a pact receives approval:[3] According to the Council of State Government, a total of 36 pacts were adopted between 1783 and 1920. Compacts became more common after 1920, with a total of 191 formed between 1921 and 2014. [1] [2] The authors of the Constitution went even further. By the first clause of this article, they established an unqualified prohibition against any treaty, alliance or confederation, and by the third clause, they demanded the approval of Congress for any agreement or pact. Taney C.J. emphasized the meaning of this distinction in Holmes v. Jennison:6Footnote39 U.S. (14 pet.) 540 (1840). Since these terms [“Agreement” and “Covenant”] cannot have been used in an idle or superfluous manner by the authors of the Constitution, they cannot be interpreted as meaning the same thing by the word Treaty.

They obviously mean something more and are designed to make the ban more comprehensive… The word “agreement” does not necessarily mean a direct and express provision; nor does it need to be done in writing. If there is an oral agreement on which both parties have subscribed and on the basis of which both act, it is an “agreement”. And the use of all these terms, “treaty”, “agreement”, “pact”, shows that the authors of the Constitution intended to use the broadest and most comprehensive terms; and that they ardently desired to sever any link or communication between a State and a foreign Power; and we will not realize this obvious intention if we do not give the word “agreement” its full meaning; and so that any written or oral, formal or informal agreement [,] positive or implied is prohibited by mutual understanding of the parties.7Footnote39 United States, pp. 571, 572. But in Virginia v. Tennessee,8Footnote148 U.S. 503, 518 (1893). See also Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S.

223, 244 (1900). More than half a century later, the Court has ruled on its position and has ruled that the unqualified prohibition of covenants and agreements between states without congressional approval does not apply to agreements on such minor matters as border adjustments that have no tendency to increase the political powers of states parties or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States. Therefore, Congressional approval of a pact is required if the agreement could harm the interests of other states or if the pact violates the rights of the national government.9FootnoteSee Texas v. New Mexico, 583 U.S. ___, No. 141, Orig., Slip op. to 4 (2018). In keeping with this subsequent understanding of the clause, the Court found no improvement in the state`s power over the federal government by adhering to the Multistate Tax Compact, thereby confirming the agreement between the participating states without congressional approval.10FootnoteUnited States Steel Corp. v.

Multistate Tax Comm`n, 434 U.S. 452 (1978). See also New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U.S. 363 (1976). In the United States, an intergovernmental pact is a pact or agreement between two or more states, or between states and a foreign government. The compact clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3) of the United States Constitution provides that “no state without the consent of Congress. enter into an agreement or pact with another State or with a foreign power,.. [1] According to the Council of State Governments, intergovernmental pacts are adopted by States to ensure cooperative action between States on certain political issues.

Policy issues may include the promotion of common programs such as environmental policy (e.B. Big Blue River Compact), the creation of multi-state agencies. B to address issues such as transportation (e.B Railroad Passenger Transportation Compact), establishment of common policies and regulations (e.B. Driver License Compact) and resolution of intergovernmental disputes. [1] The Problem of Law Enforcement: Virginia v. West Virginia. – A very important issue in intergovernmental disputes is the enforcement of the Court`s judgment as soon as it has occurred. In some types of lawsuits, this problem may not occur, and if it does, it can be easily resolved. Thus, a judgment that puts a State in possession of a disputed territory is usually self-executed.

But if the defeated state were to resist execution, recalcitrant state officials as individuals would face civil lawsuits or lawsuits in federal courts. Similarly, an injunction against state officials as individuals can be enforced through civil or criminal proceedings. .

Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Comments are closed.