FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W150690707> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W150690707 abstract "Modern legal scholarship has been highly critical of the Supreme Court’s precedent governing when a state may apply its law to conduct that occurs beyond its borders. Under this precedent, while a state court has broad discretion to apply forum law through its choice of law analysis, a state legislature may not pass legislation which regulates wholly extraterritorial conduct. Courts and scholars have long argued that the prohibition on extraterritorial legislation should be abandoned and that, under principles of federalism, stricter constitutional limitations should be placed on a state’s choice of law. Moreover, scholars have argued that these doctrines are inconsistent because there is no meaningful distinction between action by a state’s courts and its legislature. This Article responds to such criticism by arguing that the Court’s doctrines are fully consistent with the treatment of extraterritorial state power under the antebellum Constitution. In the decades leading up to the Civil War, the most important legal, political, and social issue of the day — the subject of slavery — provoked one of the country’s first and most contentious disputes over the extraterritorial application of state law. When arguing for the rejection of southern law, northerners asserted that any forced application of the law of slavery would infringe on fundamental aspects of the sovereignty of the northern states. In response, southerners contended that, under implicit principles of federalism which commanded that southern law to be treated on equal terms, northern states were constitutionally required to apply southern law when ordinary choice of law rules so dictated. Facing this conflict between principles of state sovereignty and state equality, northern courts followed traditional legal doctrine by holding that state sovereignty must prevail. An appreciation of the importance of state sovereignty to the antebellum constitution helps to make sense of the Court’s modern extraterritoriality doctrines. If state sovereignty is viewed as a fundamental tenant of federalism, any limitations on a state’s ability to apply its own law should come only from the Due Process concerns of individual litigants. A robust view of state sovereignty also fully supports the Court’s prohibition on extraterritorial legislation, despite recent judicial criticism of the doctrine. Finally, because forcing a state court to apply and enforce the law of another sovereign has very different implications for state sovereignty than a rule prohibiting a state legislature from regulating conduct in another state, state sovereignty provides a potential way to reconcile the modern Court’s differing treatment of state courts and state legislatures." @default.
• W150690707 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W150690707 creator A5044884004 @default.
• W150690707 date "2013-08-19" @default.
• W150690707 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W150690707 title "CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON EXTRATERRITORIAL STATE POWER: STATE REGULATION, CHOICE OF LAW, AND SLAVERY" @default.
• W150690707 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W150690707 type Work @default.
• W150690707 sameAs 150690707 @default.
• W150690707 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W150690707 countsByYear W1506907072014 @default.
• W150690707 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W150690707 hasAuthorship W150690707A5044884004 @default.
• W150690707 hasConcept C149209484 @default.
• W150690707 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
• W150690707 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W150690707 hasConcept C177986884 @default.
• W150690707 hasConcept C18650270 @default.
• W150690707 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W150690707 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W150690707 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W150690707 hasConcept C2780598601 @default.
• W150690707 hasConcept C533735693 @default.
• W150690707 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W150690707 hasConceptScore W150690707C149209484 @default.
• W150690707 hasConceptScore W150690707C170706310 @default.
• W150690707 hasConceptScore W150690707C17744445 @default.
• W150690707 hasConceptScore W150690707C177986884 @default.
• W150690707 hasConceptScore W150690707C18650270 @default.
• W150690707 hasConceptScore W150690707C199539241 @default.
• W150690707 hasConceptScore W150690707C2776154427 @default.
• W150690707 hasConceptScore W150690707C2778272461 @default.
• W150690707 hasConceptScore W150690707C2780598601 @default.
• W150690707 hasConceptScore W150690707C533735693 @default.
• W150690707 hasConceptScore W150690707C94625758 @default.
• W150690707 hasLocation W1506907071 @default.
• W150690707 hasOpenAccess W150690707 @default.
• W150690707 hasPrimaryLocation W1506907071 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W1531834230 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W187717311 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W2210949070 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W226932810 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W2596711683 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W2768339001 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W2773129620 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W2796892855 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W2970036553 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W3122037907 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W3122259826 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W3122545653 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W3122752098 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W3123150290 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W3134389520 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W3157784690 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W324776993 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W327898531 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W348149701 @default.
• W150690707 hasRelatedWork W3122625191 @default.
• W150690707 isParatext "false" @default.
• W150690707 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W150690707 magId "150690707" @default.
• W150690707 workType "article" @default.