An Agreement Among The 13 Original States

On January 21, 1786, on the recommendation of James Madison, Virginia law invited all states to send delegates to Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss ways to reduce intergovernmental conflict. At the so-called Annapolis Convention, the few state delegates present accepted a proposal asking all states to meet in Philadelphia in May 1787 to discuss ways to improve the articles of Confederation as part of a “Great Convention.” Although the representatives of the states of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention were only allowed to amend the articles, the representatives held secret meetings behind closed doors and drafted a new constitution. The new Constitution has given much more power to the central government, but the characterization of the result is controversial. The general objective of the authors was to approach a republic as defined by the philosophers of the Enlightenment, while trying to tackle the many difficulties of intergovernmental relations. Historian Forrest McDonald describes the change according to the ideas of James Madison of Federalist 39: As soon as Congress approves an intergovernmental pact, the pact, like any other federal law, becomes the law of the land.22FootnoteSee Texas v. New Mexico, 583 U.S. – No. 141, Orig., slip op. 4 (2018). 23FootnotePoole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. (11 pp.) 185, 209 (1837); Rhode Island v.

Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 pp.) 657, 725 (1838). Private rights may be affected by equitable water-sharing agreements of an intergovernmental stream, without any judicial provision of existing rights.24 Tentative information: La Plata River – Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92, 104, 106 (1938). Valid intergovernmental compacts are protected by the 25FootnoteGreen v. contract clause. Biddle, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1, 13 (1823); Virginia v. West Virginia, 246 U.S. 565 (1918). See also Pennsylvania v. Wheeling – Belmont Bridge Co., 54 U.S.

(13 How.) 518, 566 (1852); Olin v. Kitzmiller, 259 U.S. 260 (1922). 26FootnotePetty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm`n, 359 U.S. 275 (1959). The Supreme Court may, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, enforce intergovernmental covenants in accordance with the principles of general contract law.27Footnotetexas/.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by admin. Bookmark the permalink.