Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:31:45.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Altered States: Federalism and Devolution at the “Real” Turn of the Millennium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2001

Sandra Day O’Connor
Sandra Day O’Connor*
Affiliation:
Supreme Court of the United States
Get access

Abstract

This article is the Sir David Williams Lecture delivered by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Cambridge in May 2001. In it the author considers the operation of the twin processes of devolution and federalism in the United Kingdom and contrasts it with their operation in the United States, where the different premises have produced different historical trajectories and different contemporary challenges. Yet federalism and devolution in the two countries also reflect many of the same values and thus present many of the same opportunities.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , 30 November 2001 , pp. 493 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This speech was delivered as the inaugural Sir David Williams Lecture at the University of Cambridge Centre for Public Law on 15 May 2001. I would like to thank my law clerk, Stanley Panikowski, for his assistance in preparing this speech.

References

1 Proverbs 22:1

2 See, e.g., Lee, Michael H., “Revolution, Evolution, Devolution: Confusion?” (2000) 23 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 465Google Scholar; Burgess, Michael, “Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom: New Model or Mere Respray?” (1999) 40 S. Tex. L. Rev. 715Google Scholar; Robert Hazell, “Westminster: Squeezed From Above and Below”, in Robert Hazell (ed.), Constitutional Futures: A History of the Next Ten Years (1999).

3 Kermit L. Hall, “Introduction”, in Kermit L. Hall (ed.) Federalism: A Nation of States (1987), p. xi.

4 See, e.g., Vernon Bogdanor, Devolution in the United Kingdom (1999), p. 3; Burgess, note 2 above, at pp. 716-719.

5 Bogdanor, note 4 above, at p. 5.

6 See generally ibid, at pp. 3-18.

7 Dicey, A.V., Law of the Constitution (Wade, E.C.S. ed., 10th ed. 1959), pp. 39–40Google Scholar.

8 See generally Martin Loughlin, “Restructuring of Central-Local Government Relations”, in Jeffrey Jowell & Dawn Oliver (eds.), The Changing Constitution, 4th ed., (2000), pp. 137-164.

9 See Bogdanor, note 4 above, at pp. 44-45.

10 Rees, Hefin, “Awakening the Welsh Dragon: Will the Creation of the National Assembly for Wales Make A Significant Difference to the Constitutional Arrangements Between England and Wales?” (2000) 23 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 459, 462–463Google Scholar.

11 See Scotland Act 1998; Government of Wales Act 1998; Northern Ireland Act 1998.

12 Burgess, note above 2, at pp. 722-723.

13 Ibid, at p. 723; Geoffrey Clark, “Scottish Devolution and the European Union” [1999] Pub. Law 505, 519-522.

14 Bogdanor, note 4 above, at p. 204.

15 Ibid, at pp. 105-109; Roddick, Winston, “Devolution—The United Kingdom and the New Wales” (2000) 23 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev., 477, 482–483Google Scholar; Burgess, note 2 above, at pp. 726–728.

16 Bogdanor, Vernon, “Devolution and the British Constitution”, in Butler, David et al. (eds.), The Law, Politics, and the Constitution (1999), pp. 71–72Google Scholar.

17 Roddick, note 15 above, at p. 482.

18 Burgess, note 2 above, at p. 724.

19 Ibid, at pp. 724-725.

20 Bogdanor, note 4 above, at p. 3.

21 See, e.g., Bogdanor, note 16 above, at p. 55; Hazell, note 2 above, at p. 111.

22 See Olowofoyeku, Abimbola A., “Devolution: Conceptual and Implementational Problems” (2000) 29 Anglo-Am. L. Rev. 133, 161-162Google Scholar.

23 See, e.g., Bogdanor, note 16 above, at p. 61; Leigh, Ian, Law, Politics, and Local Democracy (2000), pp. 27–28Google Scholar; Oliver, Dawn & Drewry, Gavin, “The law and Parliament”, in Oliver, Dawn & Drewry, Gavin (eds.) The Law and Parliament (1998) p. 2Google Scholar; but see Olowofoyeku, note 22 above, at p. 162.

24 1 Cranch 137 (1803).

25 Lord Falconer of Thoroton Q.C., “The Role of the Courts in the Devolution and Human Rights Arrangements” (1999) 21 Liverpool L. Rev. 1, 1.

26 See ibid, at pp. 10, 14.

27 Ibid, at p. 14.

28 Ibid, at p. 7.

29 See, e.g., ibid, at p. 9; Paul Craig, “Constitutionalism, Regulation and Review”, in Constitutional Futures, above note 2, at p. 83; Jowell, Jeffrey, “Of Vires and Vacuums” [1999] Pub. Law 448, 457–458Google Scholar.

30 Justice John Harlan, “Thoughts at a Dedication: Keeping the Judicial Function in Balance” (1963) 49 A.B.A.J. 943, 944.

31 US Const., art. I, § 3, cl. 1.

32 US Const., art. I, § 10.

33 United States v. Darby, 312 US 100, 124 (1941).

34 US Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3; US Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 1.

35 1 Cranch 137 (1803).

36 See, e.g., Jesse H. Choper, Judicial Review and the National Political Process: A Functional Reconsideration of the Role of the Supreme Court (1980); Wechsler, Herbert, “The Political Safeguards of Federalism: The Role of the States in the Composition and Selection of the National Government” (1954) 54 Colum. L. Rev. 543Google Scholar.

37 Cf. Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 US 528, 580-589 (1985) (O’Connor, J., dissenting); see also John C. Yoo, “Judicial Review and Federalism” (1998) 22 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 197.

38 Cf. Irwin v. Gavit, 268 US 161, 168 (1925) (“Neither are we troubled by the question where to draw the line. That is the question in pretty much everything worth arguing in the law.”).

39 United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549, 578 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

40 See, e.g., Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997); Lopez, 514 US 549; New York v. United States, 505 US 144 (1992).

41 Jason Beattie, “Devolution Helps the UK, says Cook” Scotsman, 20 April 2001, at p. 11; see also Bogdanor, note 4 above, at p. 296.

42 Beattie, note 44 above; See also Robert Hazell & Brendan O’Leary, “A Rolling Programme of Devolution: Slippery Slope or Safeguard of the Union”, in Constitutional Futures, note 2 above, at pp. 45-46; Bogdanor, note 4 above, at pp. 297-298.

43 Compare, e.g., Hazell & O’Leary, note 42 above, with Olowofoyeku, note 23 above.

44 “Why We Must Keep Our Aim”, S. Wales Evening Post, 30 October 2000, at p. S.

45 See, e.g., Roddick, note 14 above, at pp. 479-480; Leigh, note 23 above, at pp. 23, 27.

46 See generally Leigh, note 24 above; See also Kevin Brown, “Shaping the Group Dynamics of the Assemblies: Regions Minister Says that English Devolution is Inevitable”, Financial Times, 9 April 2001, at p. 5.

47 SirWilliams, David, “Constitutional Issues Facing the United Kingdom” (1999) 30 Law Libr. 13Google Scholar.

48 Ibid, at p. 13.

49 Ibid.

50 See generally Constitutional Futures, note 3 above.

51 See Robert Hazell & Richard Comes, “Introduction”, in Constitutional Futures, note 2 above, at pp. 4-5.

52 Hall, note 3 above, at p. ix (quoting Blackstone); Olowofoyeku, note 22 above, at pp. 165–166; Alan J. Ward, “Devolution: Labour's Strange Constitutional ‘Design’ ”, in The Changing Constitution, note 8 above, at p. 135.

53 See note 41 above.

54 Borries, Reimer von & Hauschild, Malte, “Implementing the Subsidiarity Principle” (1999) 5 Colum. J. Eur. L. 369, 370Google Scholar.

55 Edmund L. Andrews, “Germans Offer Plan to Remake European Union”, N.Y. Times, 1 May 2001, at Al.

56 See, e.g., Craig, Paul & Búrca, Gráinne de, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 2nd ed., (1998), p. 124Google Scholar; Toth, A.G., “A Legal Analysis of Subsidiarity”, in O’Keeffe, David & Twomey, Patrick M. (eds.) Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty (1994) 37Google Scholar.

57 Ibid, at p. 129.

58 See Toth, A.G., “Is Subsidiarity Justiciable?” (1994) 19 Eur. L. Rev. 268, 268-270Google Scholar.

59 See, e.g., Gary Vause, W., “The Subsidiarity Principle in European Union Law—American Federalism Compared” (1995) 27 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 61Google Scholar.

60 See generally William T. Hutchinson, “Unite to Divide; Divide to Unite: The Shaping of American Federalism” [1959] Miss. Valley Hist. Rev. 3, reprinted in Federalism: A Nation of States, note 4 above.

61 See, e.g., Hazell & O’Leary, note 42 above; Bogdanor, note 4 above, at pp. 294-298.

62 Cass, Deborah Z., “The Word that Saves Maastricht? The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Division of Powers within the European Community” (1992) 29 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1107Google Scholar.

63 Russell, Allison S., “Subsidiarity in European Union Law: Member State Morphine for the Painful Loss of Sovereignty” (1998) 11 Int’l L. Practicum 67Google Scholar.

64 von Borries & Hauschild, note 54 above, at p. 369.

65 See, e.g., Toth, above note 58; Frank Vibert, “British Constitutional Reform and Europe”, in Constitutional Futures, note 2 above, at pp. 60-61; Paul Craig, “Britain in the European Union”, in The Changing Constitution, note 8 above, at p. 86.

66 See, e.g., Craig, note 65 above, at pp. 72-79; A.W. Bradley, “The Sovereignty of Parliament—Form or Substance?”, in The Changing Constitution, note 8 above, at pp. 43-46; Bogdanor, note 16 above, at p. 63.

67 Falconer, note 25 above, at pp. 5-6; See generally Stephen Grosz el al., Human Rights, The 1998 Act and the European Convention (2000).

68 See note 67 above; Lord Lester of Herne Hill, “Human Rights and the British Constitution”, in The Changing Constitution, note 8 above, at pp. 99-110.

69 505 US, at p. 157.

70 See, e.g., Roddick, note 14 above, at pp. 479-481; Olowofoyeku, note 22 above, at pp. 135–136.

71 See note 70 above.

72 See Bogdanor, note 4 above, at pp. 193-196.

73 See, e.g., Roddick, note 14 above, at pp. 479-480; Burgess, note 2 above, at pp. 719-721.

74 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 US 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

75 Cf. The Federalist No. 28 (Alexander Hamilton).

76 See generally Dick Howard, A.E., “The Values of Federalism” (1993) 1 New Eur. L. Rev. 143Google Scholar.