IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v31yi3p173-204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Preempted the Massachusetts Burma Law? Federalism and Political Accountability Under Global Trade Rules

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Stumberg
  • Matthew C. Porterfield

Abstract

With its “Burma law, ” Massachusetts joined a procurement boycott of companies doing business in Burma. In Crosby v. NFTC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress preempted the Massachusetts law, even though Congress was silent on preemption. The Court relied on actions by executive-branch, foreign, and corporate actors to find that the state law was an obstacle to implied objectives of federal Burma sanctions. In doing so, the Court diffused congressional accountability for preemption and constrained the “constituent diplomacy” by which states and local governments use their purchasing power to influence national policy and multinational corporations. Crosby shifted the burden to Congress to express its intent not to preempt such measures. Congress has several opportunities to meet this burden if it wants to preserve the diversity and balance that constituent diplomacy brings to the federal system. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Stumberg & Matthew C. Porterfield, 0. "Who Preempted the Massachusetts Burma Law? Federalism and Political Accountability Under Global Trade Rules," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 31(3), pages 173-204.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:31:y::i:3:p:173-204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:31:y::i:3:p:173-204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.