The Experts below are selected from a list of 5682 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
James Peoples - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Legacy of the Interstate Commerce Act and Labor: Legislation, Unionization, and Labor Earnings in Surface Transportation Services
Review of Industrial Organization, 2013Co-Authors: James PeoplesAbstract:The intended purpose of the 1887 Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) was the establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) as a regulatory agency that initially provided oversight of rate and entry of Interstate Commerce in the rail industry. The ICC’s jurisdiction later included regulation of trucking and bus transportation. An unintended consequence of ICC regulation was the development of labor markets in these sectors that helped promote labor organization and labor rent sharing. Indeed, some of the most influential unions in American labor history represented workers in ICC-regulated industries. This study examines the ICA and its aftermath as it applies to labor in these industries.
Anca D. Cristea - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Effects of the Interstate Commerce Act on Transport Costs: Evidence from Wheat Prices
Review of Industrial Organization, 2013Co-Authors: Bruce A. Blonigen, Anca D. CristeaAbstract:There is significant debate over the effect of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) on the cost of rail transport to shippers. Taking price differences across locations as proxy for transport costs, we use data on wheat prices before and after the implementation of the ICA to see if the Act led to smaller differences in wheat prices across American cities relative to a control group of European cities. We find that the ICA had no effect on US transport costs; however, it reduced their volatility substantially. This evidence supports the view that the ICA helped stabilize cartel prices after a period of significant price wars. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Conrad John Weiler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
How the Power to Regulate Commerce Among the Several States Became the Interstate Commerce Power: A Content Analysis of Supreme Court Opinions
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011Co-Authors: Conrad John WeilerAbstract:The term "Interstate Commerce" was invented in the 1840's and first used in a Supreme Court majority opinion in 1869. Since then it has largely displaced usage of the original language of the constitution, i.e., the regulation of "Commerce among the several states." This paper presents data showing the rise of 'Interstate Commerce" since 1869 over the language of the constitution, along with related data concerning use of the phrase "between the several states." The paper argues that the dominant usage of "Interstate Commerce" has not been neutral, but has accompanied and reinforced a narrower view of the power to regulate Commerce among the several states as limited to activities crossing state boundaries, and has resulted in the Court adopting additional doctrines to allow it to regulate activity inside states. In addition to the data on usage by the Court, the paper also surveys early Court interpretation of "among the several states" in Gibbons v. Ogden, explores the origins of the term "Interstate Commerce," surveys academic literature relating to the reasons for the use of the term and its implications, and reviews recent use of the term "Interstate Commerce" by the Court, especially in the Lopez decision.
-
How 'Commerce Among the Several States' Became 'Interstate Commerce:' A Content Analysis of Supreme Court Opinions
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010Co-Authors: Conrad John WeilerAbstract:This paper tabulates the number of Supreme Court majority opinions which use either the phrase "Commerce among the several states" (or close variants), which is the actual language of the Constitution, or the phrase "Interstate Commerce." We find using LEXIS searches that the latter term was first introduced into an opinion in 1869, but within about 20 years it far overshadowed the actual language of the Constitution and has been used ever since in considerably more opinions than the actual language. The greatest dominance by "Interstate Commerce" came in the 1930's, when it was used in nearly 15 times more opinions than "Commerce among the several states," but even in recent decades the former term dominates the latter by at least three times. The significance of the rise of "Interstate Commerce" is more difficult to determine, but we think from ample evidence that it corresponds to and reinforces a sense that "among the several states" has a relatively narrow meaning, that of something crossing a state border. In contrast, arguments could be made that "among" has a broader meaning, which is to go inside states. However, the dominance of "Interstate Commerce," not just in the Court's own language, but in legal discourse generally, as well as in political science and even among the public generally, not only reflects the Court's own doctrine, at least from earlier periods, but also makes it more difficult to make the argument for the broader meaning of among because of the pervasiveness of the acceptance that "Interstate Commerce" is the meaning of the Constitution.
David W. Lamb - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Avoiding Impotence: Rethinking the Standards for Applying State Antitrust Laws to Interstate Commerce
Vanderbilt Law Review, 2001Co-Authors: David W. LambAbstract:Ratio est legis anima. ("The reason for the law is its soul.")1 I. INTRODUCTION State antitrust laws are broadly constructed.2 With sweeping, general terms, often mirroring the language of the federal antitrust laws,3 most state antitrust statutes manifest a legislative design to prevent-and to punish-a variety of commercial activities that are anticompetitive in purpose or effect.4 These statutes, in conjunction with consumer protection statutes, constitute the primary vehicles through which state authorities protect consumers from harmful, anticompetitive behavior.5 Of course, despite the importance of state antitrust laws in preserving a competitive marketplace, the Constitution confines their reach.6 Through the Commerce Clause, the Constitution vests in Congress the exclusive IMAGE FORMULA6power to regulate Interstate Commerce. Accordingly, since passage of the Sherman Act in 1890,8 Congress has promulgated an extensive body of antitrust legislation regulating Interstate commercial conduct.9 Another federal constraint on state antitrust laws arises through the Supremacy Clause.10 To the extent that state antitrust laws conflict with federal legislation in the same field, courts will find them constitutionally invalid.11 State antitrust statutes, however, are not completely preempted by federal antitrust laws.12 Instead, the legislative history accompanying most state and federal antitrust statutes indicates that the two sets of statutes were designed to function as equally potent ingredients in a comprehensive protective scheme.13 In fact, early federal antitrust legislation directly reflected the policies behind the state antitrust laws of the late nineteenth century; they also reflected contemporary principles of common law.14 As coexisting and complementary instruments, state and federal antitrust statutes form an excellent example of the potential for effective multi-layered legislation. In one court's analysis, the relationship between the federal and state antitrust laws is a quintessential example of "cooperative federalism."15 Problems arise, however, when attempting to determine exactly how far the reach of state antitrust legislation actually extends within the federal scheme. Arguably, given the limitations IMAGE FORMULA8 imposed by the Commerce Clause, state antitrust laws should cover only conduct that is "predominantly intrastate in nature."16 Application of this standard, however, is increasingly problematic in a modern context. Federal regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause has expanded significantly throughout the twentieth century;17 thus it may be appropriate to reevaluate the validity of maintaining a strict Interstate/intrastate dichotomy in the application of antitrust laws. For example, if even discrete, local transactions, through their tangential effect on Interstate Commerce, are subject to Congressional regulation,18 little, if any, commercial behavior remains that can fairly be labeled "intrastate Commerce." Defining Interstate Commerce too broadly will thus leave no transactions in the intrastate category, and state antitrust laws confined to in-state conduct will become, in effect, dead letters.19 Such an outcome comports neither with the intent of the antitrust laws' drafters nor with the idea of coexisting state and federal legislative schemes. Indeed, even the Supreme Court has recognized that state laws may constitutionally reach transactions that are on some level "Interstate" in nature.20 The extent of this reach is the primary focus of this Note. Accordingly, this Note explores how the courts should characterize "intrastate Commerce" in order to preserve the continued viability of state antitrust laws. It also addresses the extent to which the federal and state antitrust laws overlap or, in contrast, the extent to which they fatally conflict. …
Bruce A. Blonigen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Effects of the Interstate Commerce Act on Transport Costs: Evidence from Wheat Prices
Review of Industrial Organization, 2013Co-Authors: Bruce A. Blonigen, Anca D. CristeaAbstract:There is significant debate over the effect of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) on the cost of rail transport to shippers. Taking price differences across locations as proxy for transport costs, we use data on wheat prices before and after the implementation of the ICA to see if the Act led to smaller differences in wheat prices across American cities relative to a control group of European cities. We find that the ICA had no effect on US transport costs; however, it reduced their volatility substantially. This evidence supports the view that the ICA helped stabilize cartel prices after a period of significant price wars. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
