Intergovernmental policy Essay Example

arise from different quarters and the Council acted as respondent suited a file against the State of Massachusetts. The reason behind this was that much of the members of the Council were affected by the law.

This suit was filed in the Federal Court. Thus from the parameters of Federalism this was a issue that was detrimental for the entire federation in a wider sense.Under the broad parameters of the law it could be stated that it is important to uphold the national policies in order to defend the Congress’s intention of foreign policies. Under the same parameters it could also be stated that the policies of the Federal Foreign Affairs should not face any obstacle under any circumstances. It could be stated that “the state Act interferes with Congress’s intention to limit economic pressure against the Burmese Government to a specific range” (Supreme Court of The United States, 2000).The specific facts of this case indicated that the “Congress’s failure to preempt state and local sanctions demonstrates implicit permission–is unavailing” (Supreme Court of The United States, 2000).

However it should be stated that the basic assumption of the Supreme Court Clause hardly recognizes the conflict of interest between State Law and Federal Law system. The ruling stated that “the state Act is preempted, and its application unconstitutional, under the Supremacy Clause” (Supreme Court of The United States, 1).It should be mentioned that the doctrinal reasoning behind this rule is based on different previous cases and follows a specific line of explanation. It was stated that “even without an express preemption provision, state law must yield to a congressional Act if Congress intends to occupy the

field, California v.

ARC America Corp. , 490 U. S. 93, 100, or to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute, Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S.

52, 66—67” (Supreme Court of The United States, 2000). Additionally the” Barclays Bank PLC v.Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. , 512 U.

S. 298” was also used (Supreme Court of The United States, 2000). It was reasoned that the State law was barring the basic objectives and purposes of the Congress it was not possible to oblige both the Federal and the State Law at the same time and no individual or party was able to satisfy both laws at one time. It also stated that “the state Act is such an obstacle, for it undermines the intended purpose and natural effect of at least three federal Act provisions” (Supreme Court of The United States, 2000).However it should be mentioned that this case suggests that once there is a conflict between state and the central authority all the aspects of Federalism, Intergovernmental Relations, and Intergovernmental Management comes into consideration in all senses. It should be remembered that “Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center.

” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006) It can be stated federalism is the benchmark stability that sustains a nation on a long term.Thus it can well be stated that the best possible level or sector of service delivery is the method of compiling the major proceedings and issues related to the states and negotiate a process that would enable the greater good for all the states in general even

if it causes difficulty for some specific states. This is because the role of Federalism is to ensure the greater good of the federation of states and not to look after the benefit of a specific state if it becomes detrimental for the cumulative issue.Again, as it is shown in this case the regulatory benchmark for the proceedings of the means of federalism is the enactment of the federal law and it is the legal/constitutional basis for delivery of this service.

(Lamb, 2004) However the boundary issues with regard to this case was the aspect the Federalism was not allowed to intervene into the state regulations and the role of the state in interpretations of the law and practicing it within the boundaries of the state.However, the “commons” issues with regard to the service states that no state can intervene into the context of law and law enforcement of the given state, in this case Massachusetts and the logic of Federalism suggested that the end goal was beneficial for all the parties involved and it was the common benefit for all. At the same time it could be stated that there are certain advantages and disadvantages of the current alignment of responsibilities on this policy or case.The basic advantage points at the common goal and benefit of all the states and the nation in general but the main disadvantage is that the Federalism has the power to loom of the matters of the state when it comes in the parameter of the Intergovernmental Relations, and Intergovernmental Management system. (Lamb, 2004) Intergovernmental Relations in this case indicates that the main political actors most involved in this

case are Crosby V.

National Foreign Trade Council or Federal Foreign Affairs and the State of Massachusetts and the entire scenario of this case surrounds around these two parties.In the parameters of the legislation, executive order, judicial action, administrative discretion these two parties acted well to establish their points and logical consideration and these are already dealt previously but the main consent lies in the fact that whatever the decisions and judgments that were taken both the parties were spot on the issue and they followed the proceedings accordingly and thus it can well be stated that the parties, Federal Foreign Affairs and the State of Massachusetts, were appropriate participants and actions were taken with compete legal and logical proceedings.However, it can be stated that there is a need of funding in order to spread awareness about the case so that issues like this can be avoided before hand and the federal government must take the initiative to raise fund in spreading this awareness program. It should be remembered that mandates involved in the execution of the service pointed towards the issues that involved international positions of the nation along with the intergovernmental relation. It was necessary to settle the issue with justice and faith in the judicial system.

The roles that the federal court played on this policy was just and logical as it is stated earlier and it can well mentioned that the judgment that was passed could have been the only logical judgment possible. (Lamb, 2004) The Intergovernmental Management in this context of the case between Crosby V. National Foreign Trade Council was very clear and precise as the fundamental question of the

case was directly related to the international status of the country and the credibility of the National Foreign Trade Council as an effective policy maker.Thus the greater aspects of the national integrity were taken into consideration while ruling. The basic dissent relating to the case Crosby V. National Foreign Trade Council raised from the fact that it was argued that the National Foreign Trade Council should not be taken into consideration while judging the internal financial activities of a State.

It is also argued that a State is assumed as a fundamental sovereign power to impose of rule out policies that are associated with the State affairs.Thus it was argued that the ruling was against the sovereignty of the State in a way. However, it should be mentioned that the administrative participants carry through on implementation of the philosophical (Federalism) and political (IGR) goals of the case was exemplary and it followed all the legal norms and deliberations included. The political goal, in overall sense was well achieved as the state was logically dealt with and the means of the proceedings were well aligned with the philosophy and politics on this case and it was not difficult for administrators to reconcile.It should also be mentioned that the administrators and public managers used their discretion broadly in case implementation and no other parties were incorporated to negotiate in order to bring positive outcomes on the service.

(Lamb, 2004).References: Lamb, D; (2004); Cult to Culture: The Development of Civilization on the Strategic Strata; Wellington: National Book TrustStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Oct 12, 2006; Federalism; Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University; Retrieved on 12. 10. 2007 from http://plato.

stanford.

edu/entries/federalism/ Supreme Court of The United States; 2000; Crosby V. National Foreign Trade Council (99-474) 530 U. S. 363 (2000). Supreme Court Collection: Cornell University Law School; Retrieved on 12.

10. 2007 from http://www. law. cornell. edu/supct/html/99-474. ZS.

html.