Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article analyzes the increasing use of state preemption law by conservative state leaders as a tool to rein in progressive local governments. The scope and special qualities of recent state preemption laws are explored by examining legislation preempting local fracking bans, preventing minimum wage ordinances, targeting sanctuary city policies, overturning LGBT rights ordinances, and enacting blanket preemption measures. Reasons for the recent surge of state preemption laws are suggested, and the overall effectiveness of these laws is discussed. I conclude that rising conservative dominance of state legislatures has provided the opportunity to thwart progressive local policies, and these efforts have been aided by various industry and conservative organized groups. State preemption laws are not always successful in their aims. In some cases, state supreme courts have sided with local officials' claims of state overreach. In others, local officials have simply refused to comply. In any case, the threat of preemption may have a chilling effect on local policy innovation.

With limited authority over state lawmaking, but ultimate responsibility for the performance of government, how effective are governors in moving their programs through the legislature? This book advances a new theory about what makes chief executives most successful and explores this theory through original data. Thad Kousser and Justin H. Phillips argue that negotiations over the budget, on the one hand, and policy bills on the other are driven by fundamentally different dynamics. They capture these dynamics in models informed by interviews with gubernatorial advisors, cabinet members, press secretaries and governors themselves. Through a series of novel empirical analyses and rich case studies, the authors demonstrate that governors can be powerful actors in the lawmaking process, but that what they're bargaining over – the budget or policy – shapes both how they play the game and how often they can win it.

Emanuele Castrucci bridges the two seemingly unrelated worlds of classical Greek philosophy and Jewish biblical exegesis. He connects them through the historical nexus of Christianity, which has marked the destiny of Western philosophy across the political, philosophical and jurisprudential horizons.

Ambition theory suggests that scholars can understand a good deal about politics by exploring politicians' career goals. In the USA, an enormous literature explains congressional politics by assuming that politicians primarily desire to win re-election. In contrast, although Brazil's institutions appear to encourage incumbency, politicians do not seek to build a career within the legislature. Instead, political ambition focuses on the subnational level. Even while serving in the legislature, Brazilian legislators act strategically to further their future extra-legislative careers by serving as 'ambassadors' of subnational governments. Brazil's federal institutions also affect politicians' electoral prospects and career goals, heightening the importance of subnational interests in the lower chamber of the national legislature. Together, ambition and federalism help explain important dynamics of executive-legislative relations in Brazil. This book's rational-choice institutionalist perspective contributes to the literature on the importance of federalism and subnational politics to understanding national-level politics around the world.

The past decade has witnessed the emergence and rapid spread of a new and aggressive form of state preemption of local government action across a wide range of subjects, including among others firearms, workplace conditions, sanctuary cities, antidiscrimination laws, and environmental and public health regulation. Particularly striking are punitive measures that do not just preempt local measures but also hit local officials or governments with criminal or civil fines, state aid cutoffs, or liability for damages, as well as broad preemption proposals that would virtually end local initiative over a wide range of subjects. The rise of the new preemption is closely linked to the partisan and ideological polarization between red states and their blue cities. This Essay examines the spread of the new preemption and explores the legal doctrines available to local governments for challenging it. It argues that the more extreme preemption measures threaten the capacity for local self-government and are at odds with the values of local autonomy, the cornerstone role local governments play in our governmental structure, and the widespread state constitutional commitment to home rule. It also considers whether arguments about localism, like arguments about federalism, are really just about means to specific policy ends. It concludes that particularly in the current era of polarization, our system ought to protect some local space for self-determination for problems that arise at the local level.

Parliamentary theory, practices, discourses, and institutions constitute a distinctively European contribution to modern politics. Taking a broad historical perspective, this cross-disciplinary, innovative, and rigorous collection locates the essence of parliamentarism in four key aspects-deliberation, representation, responsibility, and sovereignty-and explores the different ways in which they have been contested, reshaped, and implemented in a series of representative national and regional case studies. As one of the first comparative studies in conceptual history, this volume focuses on debates about the nature of parliament and parliamentarism within and across different European countries, representative institutions, and genres of political discourse.

This book first provides a critical analysis of the legal framework that governs the delegation of rulemaking powers to the European Commission. Second, it explores how the framework that governs such a delegation of powers to the Commission operates in the food and health policy domain.

In recognition of the 200th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, AEI's Program on American Citizenship commissioned five distinguished scholars to author essays keyed to that decision. The program hosted a panel discussion with the authors to present their initial drafts in February 2019. The chapters of this edited volume are the finalized versions of those essays.

This book has four main themes: (1) a criticism of 'common law constitutionalism', the theory that Parliament's authority is conferred by, and therefore is or can be made subordinate to, judge-made common law; (2) an analysis of Parliament's ability to abdicate, limit or regulate the exercise of its own authority, including a revision of Dicey's conception of sovereignty, a repudiation of the doctrine of implied repeal and the proposal of a novel theory of 'manner and form' requirements for law-making; (3) an examination of the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and statutory interpretation, defending the reality of legislative intentions, and their indispensability to sensible interpretation and respect for parliamentary sovereignty; and (4) an assessment of the compatibility of parliamentary sovereignty with recent constitutional developments, including the expansion of judicial review of administrative action, the Human Rights and European Communities Acts and the growing recognition of 'constitutional principles' and 'constitutional statutes'.

In an original assessment of all three branches, Jasmine Farrier reveals a new way in which the American federal system is broken. Turning away from the partisan narratives of everyday politics,Constitutional Dysfunction on Trial diagnoses the deeper and bipartisan nature of imbalance of power that undermines public deliberation and accountability, especially on war powers. By focusing on the lawsuits brought by Congressional members that challenge presidential unilateralism, Farrier provides a new diagnostic lens on the permanent institutional problems that have undermined the separation of powers system in the last five decades, across a diverse array of partisan and policy landscapes. As each chapter demonstrates, member lawsuits are an outlet for frustrated members of both parties who cannot get their House and Senate colleagues to confront overweening presidential action through normal legislative processes. But these lawsuits often backfire - leaving Congress as an institution even more disadvantaged. Jasmine Farrier argues these suits are more symptoms of constitutional dysfunction than the cure.Constitutional Dysfunction on Trial shows federal judges will not and cannot restore the separation of powers system alone. Fifty years of congressional atrophy cannot be reversed in court.