Decision-making procedures in a compact are defined in the compact itself. In the case of pacts that envisage making future decisions, decision-making may be delegated to the intergovernmental agency constituted by the Covenant, which serves representatives of the contracting states to the Covenant or to another governing body with representatives of the parties, such as. B a board of directors. While historically, intergovernmental pacts have included only states as parties, the federal government has recently participated in some pacts. [73] Indeed, some Pacts require a representative of the federal government to participate in compact governance. For example, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and the Compact Tunnel require that a member of the 13-member board of directors governing the pact be appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, as noted above. [74] Some pacts have been implemented by Congress under federal law and provide for direct federal involvement in matters involved in the pact, such as the Interstate Agreement on Detainers,[75] which applies to the transfer of prisoners convicted of independent trials. [15] Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893). This could happen if a pact „changed the balance of power between the federal states and the federal government,“ created coalitions of states that would reduce the power of the federal government or change the balance of power between states in the federal structure, or assert themselves poorly on a constitutionally established subject available to Congress.
Buenger et al., supra note 2, at 69. 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court in Virginia v. Tennessee, found that „the application of the Interstate Compact Clause is limited to agreements that … „creating a combination that tends to increase political power in states, which can harm or disrupt the just dominance of the United States.“ This case was mentioned in the decision of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Maine (1976). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that an order of approval between states was authorized to determine the borders of states. Virginia v. Tennessee has also been appointed to Northeast Bancorp, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1985), in which the Supreme Court ruled that the state statutes enacted by Connecticut and Massachusetts, which overturned the ban on Intestate`s acquisitions, were constitutional and did not require approval of the U.S. Federal Reserve system.
A U.S. Court of Auditors ruling for the 9th Seattle Master Builders Association v. Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council (1986) also found that there was no need to approve Congress for joint state activities that do not affect federal authorities. [6] [7] According to the Council of Governments, 36 pacts were approved between 1783 and 1920. After 1920, The Compacts were formed more and more often, with a total of 191 between 1921 and 2014. [1] [2] The date of approval of Congress is not set by the Constitution, so approval may be given either before or after state approval of a particular pact. Consent may be explicit, but it can also be inferred from the circumstances. Congress may also set conditions for approving a pact.
[2] Congress must explicitly approve any pact that would increase the political power of states in a way that would bring down the power of the federal government. [3] Compacts` approaches to their management are different. Some pacts, especially those that set specific conditions for their purpose, may simply designate the agencies of the states that are parties to the Covenant and are responsible for complying with those conditions. [60] Where meaningful coordination and communication between states is required, a pact may designate one or more persons per state who are responsible for monitoring the state`s performance under the Covenant. [61] Other compacts may assign important regulatory powers and expertise to intergovernmental organizations to achieve compact objectives and manage compliance. [62] These intergovernmental bodies can also promote cooperation in the framework of cooperation and, e
Neueste Kommentare