The Experts below are selected from a list of 222 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Charles Doyle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Naomi Harlin Goodno - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • When the Commerce Clause Goes International: A Proposed Legal Framework for the Foreign Commerce Clause
    2013
    Co-Authors: Naomi Harlin Goodno
    Abstract:

    Congress is allowed “to regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The scope of Congress’s power to regulate Commerce “among the several States” (the “Interstate Commerce Clause”) has long been debated. In the modern world of global interaction, Congress’s power to regulate Commerce “with Foreign Nations” (the “Foreign Commerce Clause”) may soon take center-stage. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has not yet articulated a legal framework for the Foreign Commerce Clause which has lead to circuit splits and confusion as to the scope of this power.This legal issue has recently surfaced in the context of the PROTECT Act, a federal statute with extraterritorial application which prohibits U.S. citizens from molesting children abroad. Does the Foreign Commerce Clause give Congress plenary power to make it a crime for a U.S. citizen to engage in child sex trafficking in Cambodia? How about robbing a bank in Spain? What about for far less offensive conduct, such as littering in France? Indeed, can this be taken to the extreme so that under the Foreign Commerce power Congress can prohibit a U.S. citizen from eating pasta in Italy? How about conduct by non-U.S citizens in other countries? And, what does international law have to say about this? All of these questions raise one important issue: What connection, if any, must the conduct have to the United States in order for it to fall within the scope of the Foreign Commerce Clause? Lower courts are in disarray in how to answer this question. The purpose of this article is to set forth a practical and comprehensive legal framework for the Foreign Commerce Clause that could be applied to these different situations and to the myriad of other federal laws with extraterritorial application. (Appendix A to the Article sets forth over three hundred federal laws that could be implicated.) This is the first and only article to contemplate a distinct legal framework considering international legal principles and the history, jurisprudence, and text of the Foreign Commerce Clause.

  • When the Commerce Clause Goes International: A Proposed Legal Framework for the Foreign Commerce Clause
    Florida Law Review, 2012
    Co-Authors: Naomi Harlin Goodno
    Abstract:

    II. THE Foreign Commerce CLAUSE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: EXISTING OPTIONS INADEQUATE 1150 A. Option #1: The Interstate Commerce Clause Legal Framework—Too Distinctive and Complex 1152 1. History 1153 2. Current Legal Landscape 1155 3. Legal Framework Inapplicable to the Foreign Commerce Clause 1161 4. Relevant Themes 1165 B. Option #2: The Foreign Commerce Clause Legal Framework—In Disarray 1166 1. History 1167 2. Current Legal Landscape 1171 a. Dormant Foreign Commerce Clause Test: “One Voice” 1172 b. (Non-Dormant) Foreign Commerce Clause: Circuit Splits 1175 i. Conduct Related to Trade with Foreign Nations 1175 ii. Conduct of U.S. Citizens who Travel in Foreign Commerce 1177 C. Option #3: The Indian Commerce Clause Legal Framework—Too Unique 1188 1. History 1188 2. Current Legal Landscape 1189

Anthony J. Colangelo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Foreign Commerce Clause
    2010
    Co-Authors: Anthony J. Colangelo
    Abstract:

    This Article comprehensively addresses Congress’s powers under the Constitution’s Foreign Commerce Clause. Congress has increasingly used the Clause to pass laws of unprecedented and aggressive reach over both domestic and Foreign activity. Yet despite the Clause’s mounting significance for modern U.S. regulatory regimes at home and abroad, it remains an incredibly under-analyzed source of constitutional power. Moreover, faced with an increasing number of challenges under the Clause lower courts have been unable to coherently articulate the contours of Congress’s legislative authority. When courts have tried, their efforts have largely been wrong. The Article explains why they have been wrong and offers a doctrinally and conceptually sound approach to the Clause based on the text, structure and history of the Constitution. It also engages broader legal and policy questions triggered by the Clause. As I show, the Clause is crucial to how Congress constitutionally may project U.S. law around the world.The Article advances two key limits on Congress’s Foreign Commerce power and reformats the Supreme Court’s three-category Commerce framework for the Clause in light of these limits. The first is the nexus requirement, which derives from the Constitution’s grant of power only to regulate Commerce “with Foreign Nations,” not a general, global power to regulate Commerce “among Foreign Nations.” Foreign Commerce that is the subject of federal regulation therefore not only must be “with” Foreign nations, but also “with” the United States. That is, there must be a U.S. nexus. The second limit I refer to as the Foreign sovereignty concern. It holds that Congress has no more power and, in some contexts, has less power to regulate inside Foreign nations under the Foreign Commerce Clause than it has inside the several U.S. states under the Interstate Commerce Clause. For example, Congress cannot create comprehensive global regulatory schemes over international markets or prevent races to the bottom among the world’s nations the same way it can create comprehensive national regulatory schemes over domestic markets and prevent races to the bottom among the states. Because Congress lacks primary authority to create such global schemes, it cannot claim a derivative authority to reach local Foreign conduct that threatens to undercut those schemes the same way it can reach local intrastate conduct in order to effectuate regulation “among the several States.”

  • The Foreign Commerce Clause
    Virginia Law Review, 2010
    Co-Authors: Anthony J. Colangelo
    Abstract:

    INTRODUCTION 950 I. THE INWARD-LOOKING Foreign Commerce POWER 959 A. Greater Power over the States 961 B. Limited Power over Foreign Nations 966 II. THE OUTWARD-LOOKING Foreign Commerce POWER ........ 969 A. Limiting Principles 970 1. The Nexus Requirement 970 2. The Foreign Sovereignty Concern 971 a. Text and History 972 b. Inapplicability of Other Commerce Rationales.... 978 B. The Outward-Looking Framework 983

Kevin P Gallagher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • international trade and air pollution estimating the economic costs of air emissions from waterborne Commerce vessels in the united states
    Journal of Environmental Management, 2005
    Co-Authors: Kevin P Gallagher
    Abstract:

    Although there is a burgeoning literature on the effects of international trade on the environment, relatively little work has been done on where trade most directly effects the environment: the transportation sector. This article shows how international trade is affecting air pollution emissions in the United States' shipping sector. Recent work has shown that cargo ships have been long overlooked regarding their contribution to air pollution. Indeed, ship emissions have recently been deemed "the last unregulated source of traditional air pollutants". Air pollution from ships has a number of significant local, national, and global environmental effects. Building on past studies, we examine the economic costs of this increasing and unregulated form of environmental damage. We find that total emissions from ships are largely increasing due to the increase in Foreign Commerce (or international trade). The economic costs of SO2 pollution range from dollars 697 million to dollars 3.9 billion during the period examined, or dollars 77 to dollars 435 million on an annual basis. The bulk of the cost is from Foreign Commerce, where the annual costs average to dollars 42 to dollars 241 million. For NOx emissions the costs are dollars 3.7 billion over the entire period or dollars 412 million per year. Because Foreign trade is driving the growth in US shipping, we also estimate the effect of the Uruguay Round on emissions. Separating out the effects of global trade agreements reveals that the trade agreement-led emissions amounted to dollars 96 to dollars 542 million for SO2 between 1993 and 2001, or dollars 10 to dollars 60 million per year. For NOx they were dollars 745 million for the whole period or dollars 82 million per year. Without adequate policy responses, we predict that these trends and costs will continue into the future.

G. W. Jones - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Federal Wetlands Jurisdiction – The Quagmire of Rapanos v. United States
    Pittsburgh Journal of Environmental and Public Health Law, 2008
    Co-Authors: G. W. Jones
    Abstract:

    Federal jurisdiction over wetlands under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) 1 has always been difficult to delineate. Wetlands, by definition can be difficult to classify as either water or land. The CWA attempts to regulate these areas; it prohibits discharge of material without a permit into “navigable waters,” which are in turn defined in section 1362(7) of the CWA as the “waters of the United States.” The Army Corps of Engineers 2 is charged with granting permits, and must make the determination of whether or not certain areas of wetlands fall within the jurisdiction of the CWA. 3 The Corps has interpreted the phrase “navigable waters” very broadly to include waters “which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or Foreign Commerce.” 4 The tributaries of any of these “waters” also fall within the Corps’ jurisdiction. 5 Intrastate waters are covered if their “use, degradation or destruction . . . could affect interstate or Foreign Commerce.” 6 Wetlands “adjacent” to waters, such as those described above, except waters that are themselves wetlands, also clearly fall within federal jurisdiction under the CWA. 7 Jurisdictional problems arise however when there are bodies of water or wetlands close to but not directly connected to navigable waters. These areas may still have significant impact on the neighboring navigable waters if a developer fills them in, or an industrial site discharges pollutants into them. Thus the Corps of Engineers has sought to regulate some of these wetland areas, in order to hold true to the CWA’s overall goals “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.