Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T02:13:05.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part Five Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2009

Elizabeth Garrett ,
Elizabeth A. Graddy  and
Howell E. Jackson
Elizabeth Garrett
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Elizabeth A. Graddy
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Howell E. Jackson
Affiliation:
Harvard Law School, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Fiscal Challenges
An Interdisciplinary Approach to Budget Policy
 , pp. 446 - 450
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Stacy and Roberts, Blake, The Capacity to Commit in the Absence of Legislation: Takings, Winstar, FTCA & the Court of Claims (May 2005), available athttp://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/CapacitytoCommitt_12.pdf.
Bowen, James W., Enforcing the Balanced Budget Amendment, 4 seton hall const. l.j. 565 (1994).Google Scholar
Briffault, Richard, The Disfavored Constitution: State Fiscal Limits and State Constitutional Law, 34 rutgers l.j. 907 (2003).Google Scholar
Briffault, Richard, The Item Veto in State Courts, 66 temple l. rev. 1171 (1993).Google Scholar
Mark Champoux and John Lobato, The Limited Power of Courts to Order Spending (May 14, 2006), available athttp://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/ CourtOrderSpending_24.pdf.
Frug, Gerald E., The Judicial Power of the Purse, 126 u. penn. l. rev. 715 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Steve R., Supermajority Provisions, Guinn v. Legislature, and a Flawed Constitutional Structure, 4 nev l.j. 491 (2004).Google Scholar
Krishnakumar, Anita S., In Defense of the Debt Limit Statute, 42 harv. j. legis. 135 (2005).Google Scholar
Marino, Richard J. and Waddell, Colleen, Revised Lease and Appropriation-Backed Debt Rating Criteria, standard & poor's rating services, June 13, 2001.Google Scholar
McClelland, Drew and Walsh, Sam, Litigating Challenges to Judicial Spending Decisions: The Role of Standing and Political Question Doctrine (May 1, 2006), available athttp://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/LitigatingChallenges_33.pdf.
Merrill, Thomas W., The Landscape of Constitutional Property, 86 virginia l. rev. 885 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, William D., Interpreting Conflicting Provisions of the Nevada State Constitution, 5 nev. l.j. 308 (2004).Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A. and Vermeule, Adrian, Legislation Entrenchment: A Reappraisal, 111 yale l.j. 1665 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stith, Kate, Rewriting the Fiscal Constitution: The Case of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, 76 cal. l. rev. 593 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stempel, Jeffrey W., The Most Rational Branch: Guinn v. Legislature and the Judiciary's Role as Helpful Arbiter of Conflict, 4 nev. l.j. 518 (2004).Google Scholar
Strouse, Daniel S., The “Item Veto” Case, Bennett v. Napolitano: What About the Merits?, 37 ariz. st. l.j. 165 (2005).Google Scholar
Strouse, Daniel S., The Structure of Appropriations Legislation and the Governor's Item Veto Power: The Arizona Experience, 36 ariz. l. rev. 113 (1994).Google Scholar
Vermeule, Adrian, Veil of Ignorance Rules in Constitutional Law, 111 yale l.j. 399 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolhandler, Ann, The Common Law Origins of Constitutionally Compelled Remedies, 107 yale l.j. 77 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard Briffault, balancing acts: the reality behind state balanced budget requirements (1996).
David P. Currie, the constitution in the supreme court: the first hundred years, 1789–1888 (1985).
Apa v. Butler, 638 N.W.2d 57 (S.D. 2001).
Abbott v. Burke V, 710 A.2d 450 (N.J. 1998).
Brown v. Firestone, 382 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1980).
Alaska Legislative Council v. Knowles, 21 P.3d 367 (Ak. 2001).
Amador Valley Joint Union High School Dist. v. Board of Equalization, 583 P.2d 1281 (Cal. 1978).
Bennett v. Napolitano, 81 P.3d 311 (Az. 2003).
Bishop v. Governor of Maryland, 380 A.2d 220 (Md. 1977).
Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989).
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986).
Brosnahan v. Brown, 651 P.2d 274 (Cal. 1982).
Carr-Gottstein Properties v. State, 899 P.2d 136 (Ak. 1995).
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 (1837).
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).
Chiles v. Milligan, 659 So.2d 1055 (Fl. 1995).
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).
Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition v. Ortiz, 121 P.3d 288 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm, 704 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1985).
Colton v. Branstad, 372 N.W.2d 184 (Ia. 1985).
Drummond v. Beasley, 503 S.E.2d 455 (S.C. 1998).
Dykes v. Northern Virginia Transportation District Comm'n, 411 S.E.2d 1 (Va. 1991).
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998).
Employers Insurance Co. of Nevada v. State Bd. of Examiners, 21 P.3d 628 (Nev. 2001).
Fent v. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 984 P.2d 200 (Okla. 1999).
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).
Guinn v. Legislature of the State of Nevada, 71 P.3d 1269 (Nev. 2003) (“Guinn I”).
Guinn v. Legislature of the State of Nevada, 76 P.3d 22 (Nev. 2003) (“Guinn II”).
Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934).
Judy v. Schaefer, 627 A.2d 1039 (Md. 1993).
Lance v. McGreevey, 853 A.2d 856 (N.J. 2004).
Local Government Assistance Corp. v. Sales Tax Asset Receivable Corp., 2 N.Y.3d 524 (2004).
Lonegan v. State, 809 A.2d 9130 (N.J. 2002) (“Lonegan I”).
Lonegan v. State, 819 A.2d 395 (N.J. 2003) (“Lonegan II”).
Management Council of the Wyoming Legislature v. Geringer, 953 P.2d 839 (Wyo. 1998).
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995).
O'Donaghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933).
Opinion of the Justices, 582 N.E.2d 504 (Mass. 1991).
Pataki v. New York State Assembly, 4 N.Y.3d 75 (2004).
Pataki v. Silver, 96 N.Y.2d 532 (2001).
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885).
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
Rider v. City of San Diego, 959 P.2d 347 (Cal. 1998).
Rios v. Symington, 833 P.2d 20 (Ariz. 1992).
Schulz v. State of New York, 639 N.E.2d 1140 (N.Y. 1994).
State ex rel. Kleczka v. Conta, 264 N.W.2d 539 (Wis. 1978).
State ex rel. Ohio Funds Management Bd. v. Walker, 561 N.E.2d 927 (Ohio 1990).
State ex rel. Wisconsin Senate v. Thompson, 424 N.W.2d 385 (Wis. 1988).
Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975).
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819).
United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996).
Washington State Legislature v. Lowry, 931 P.2d 885 (Wash. 1997).
Washington State Legislature v. State, 985 P.2d 353 note 6 (Wash. 1999).
Wein v. Carey, 41 N.Y.2d 498, 504 (N.Y. 1977).
Welsh v. Branstad, 470 N.W.2d 644 (Ia. 1991).
White v. Davis, 108 Cal. App. 4th 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933).
Wilson v. Kentucky Transp. Cabinet, 884 S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1994).
Winkler v. School Building Authority, 434 S.E.2d 420 (W.Va. 1993).
government accountability office, principles of federal appropriations law (3d ed., 2004).
national ass'n of state budget officers, budget processes in the states at 33 (2002).
national conference of state legislatures, legislative budget procedures: a guide to appropriations and budget processes in the states, commonwealths and territories (2006), available athttp://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/lbptabls/index.htm#dveloprb.
national conference of state legislatures, state tax and expenditure limits – 2005 (2005), available athttp://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/tels2005.htm.
national conference of state legislatures, supermajority vote requirements to pass the budget (1998), available athttp://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/supmjbud.htm.
Joseph Story, commentaries on the constitution of the united states (1833).
Ak. Const., art. II., § 13.
Ariz. Const., art. 9 § 5.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 109-199, Div., B, tit. I, 118 Stat. 3, 46.
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-177, 99 Stat. 1038.
Ga. Const., art. VII, § IV, ¶ II.
Ind. Const., art. X, § 5.
Ky. Const., § 49.
Legislative Appropriations Act of 1932, ch. 314, 47 Stat. 382.
Mich. Const., art. IX, § 15.
Nev. Const., art. 11, § 2–6.
N.J. Const., art. VIII, § 2.
N.Y. Const., art. VII, § 4–6.
R.I. Const., art. VI, § 16.
Social Security Act, ch. 531, sec. 1104, 49 Stat. 620, 648.
28 U.S.C. 501–518.
31 U.S.C. 3102–3106.
42 U.S.C. 401.
U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 9–10.
10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810).
W.Va. Const., art. X, Sec.§ 4.
Wisc. Const., art. V, § 10(1)(c).
Anderson, Stacy and Roberts, Blake, The Capacity to Commit in the Absence of Legislation: Takings, Winstar, FTCA & the Court of Claims (May 2005), available athttp://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/CapacitytoCommitt_12.pdf.
Bowen, James W., Enforcing the Balanced Budget Amendment, 4 seton hall const. l.j. 565 (1994).Google Scholar
Briffault, Richard, The Disfavored Constitution: State Fiscal Limits and State Constitutional Law, 34 rutgers l.j. 907 (2003).Google Scholar
Briffault, Richard, The Item Veto in State Courts, 66 temple l. rev. 1171 (1993).Google Scholar
Mark Champoux and John Lobato, The Limited Power of Courts to Order Spending (May 14, 2006), available athttp://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/ CourtOrderSpending_24.pdf.
Frug, Gerald E., The Judicial Power of the Purse, 126 u. penn. l. rev. 715 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Steve R., Supermajority Provisions, Guinn v. Legislature, and a Flawed Constitutional Structure, 4 nev l.j. 491 (2004).Google Scholar
Krishnakumar, Anita S., In Defense of the Debt Limit Statute, 42 harv. j. legis. 135 (2005).Google Scholar
Marino, Richard J. and Waddell, Colleen, Revised Lease and Appropriation-Backed Debt Rating Criteria, standard & poor's rating services, June 13, 2001.Google Scholar
McClelland, Drew and Walsh, Sam, Litigating Challenges to Judicial Spending Decisions: The Role of Standing and Political Question Doctrine (May 1, 2006), available athttp://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/hjackson/LitigatingChallenges_33.pdf.
Merrill, Thomas W., The Landscape of Constitutional Property, 86 virginia l. rev. 885 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, William D., Interpreting Conflicting Provisions of the Nevada State Constitution, 5 nev. l.j. 308 (2004).Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A. and Vermeule, Adrian, Legislation Entrenchment: A Reappraisal, 111 yale l.j. 1665 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stith, Kate, Rewriting the Fiscal Constitution: The Case of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, 76 cal. l. rev. 593 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stempel, Jeffrey W., The Most Rational Branch: Guinn v. Legislature and the Judiciary's Role as Helpful Arbiter of Conflict, 4 nev. l.j. 518 (2004).Google Scholar
Strouse, Daniel S., The “Item Veto” Case, Bennett v. Napolitano: What About the Merits?, 37 ariz. st. l.j. 165 (2005).Google Scholar
Strouse, Daniel S., The Structure of Appropriations Legislation and the Governor's Item Veto Power: The Arizona Experience, 36 ariz. l. rev. 113 (1994).Google Scholar
Vermeule, Adrian, Veil of Ignorance Rules in Constitutional Law, 111 yale l.j. 399 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolhandler, Ann, The Common Law Origins of Constitutionally Compelled Remedies, 107 yale l.j. 77 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard Briffault, balancing acts: the reality behind state balanced budget requirements (1996).
David P. Currie, the constitution in the supreme court: the first hundred years, 1789–1888 (1985).
Apa v. Butler, 638 N.W.2d 57 (S.D. 2001).
Abbott v. Burke V, 710 A.2d 450 (N.J. 1998).
Brown v. Firestone, 382 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1980).
Alaska Legislative Council v. Knowles, 21 P.3d 367 (Ak. 2001).
Amador Valley Joint Union High School Dist. v. Board of Equalization, 583 P.2d 1281 (Cal. 1978).
Bennett v. Napolitano, 81 P.3d 311 (Az. 2003).
Bishop v. Governor of Maryland, 380 A.2d 220 (Md. 1977).
Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989).
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986).
Brosnahan v. Brown, 651 P.2d 274 (Cal. 1982).
Carr-Gottstein Properties v. State, 899 P.2d 136 (Ak. 1995).
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 (1837).
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).
Chiles v. Milligan, 659 So.2d 1055 (Fl. 1995).
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).
Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition v. Ortiz, 121 P.3d 288 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
Colorado General Assembly v. Lamm, 704 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1985).
Colton v. Branstad, 372 N.W.2d 184 (Ia. 1985).
Drummond v. Beasley, 503 S.E.2d 455 (S.C. 1998).
Dykes v. Northern Virginia Transportation District Comm'n, 411 S.E.2d 1 (Va. 1991).
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998).
Employers Insurance Co. of Nevada v. State Bd. of Examiners, 21 P.3d 628 (Nev. 2001).
Fent v. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 984 P.2d 200 (Okla. 1999).
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).
Guinn v. Legislature of the State of Nevada, 71 P.3d 1269 (Nev. 2003) (“Guinn I”).
Guinn v. Legislature of the State of Nevada, 76 P.3d 22 (Nev. 2003) (“Guinn II”).
Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934).
Judy v. Schaefer, 627 A.2d 1039 (Md. 1993).
Lance v. McGreevey, 853 A.2d 856 (N.J. 2004).
Local Government Assistance Corp. v. Sales Tax Asset Receivable Corp., 2 N.Y.3d 524 (2004).
Lonegan v. State, 809 A.2d 9130 (N.J. 2002) (“Lonegan I”).
Lonegan v. State, 819 A.2d 395 (N.J. 2003) (“Lonegan II”).
Management Council of the Wyoming Legislature v. Geringer, 953 P.2d 839 (Wyo. 1998).
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995).
O'Donaghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933).
Opinion of the Justices, 582 N.E.2d 504 (Mass. 1991).
Pataki v. New York State Assembly, 4 N.Y.3d 75 (2004).
Pataki v. Silver, 96 N.Y.2d 532 (2001).
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885).
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
Rider v. City of San Diego, 959 P.2d 347 (Cal. 1998).
Rios v. Symington, 833 P.2d 20 (Ariz. 1992).
Schulz v. State of New York, 639 N.E.2d 1140 (N.Y. 1994).
State ex rel. Kleczka v. Conta, 264 N.W.2d 539 (Wis. 1978).
State ex rel. Ohio Funds Management Bd. v. Walker, 561 N.E.2d 927 (Ohio 1990).
State ex rel. Wisconsin Senate v. Thompson, 424 N.W.2d 385 (Wis. 1988).
Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975).
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819).
United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996).
Washington State Legislature v. Lowry, 931 P.2d 885 (Wash. 1997).
Washington State Legislature v. State, 985 P.2d 353 note 6 (Wash. 1999).
Wein v. Carey, 41 N.Y.2d 498, 504 (N.Y. 1977).
Welsh v. Branstad, 470 N.W.2d 644 (Ia. 1991).
White v. Davis, 108 Cal. App. 4th 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933).
Wilson v. Kentucky Transp. Cabinet, 884 S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1994).
Winkler v. School Building Authority, 434 S.E.2d 420 (W.Va. 1993).
government accountability office, principles of federal appropriations law (3d ed., 2004).
national ass'n of state budget officers, budget processes in the states at 33 (2002).
national conference of state legislatures, legislative budget procedures: a guide to appropriations and budget processes in the states, commonwealths and territories (2006), available athttp://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/lbptabls/index.htm#dveloprb.
national conference of state legislatures, state tax and expenditure limits – 2005 (2005), available athttp://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/tels2005.htm.
national conference of state legislatures, supermajority vote requirements to pass the budget (1998), available athttp://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/supmjbud.htm.
Joseph Story, commentaries on the constitution of the united states (1833).
Ak. Const., art. II., § 13.
Ariz. Const., art. 9 § 5.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 109-199, Div., B, tit. I, 118 Stat. 3, 46.
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-177, 99 Stat. 1038.
Ga. Const., art. VII, § IV, ¶ II.
Ind. Const., art. X, § 5.
Ky. Const., § 49.
Legislative Appropriations Act of 1932, ch. 314, 47 Stat. 382.
Mich. Const., art. IX, § 15.
Nev. Const., art. 11, § 2–6.
N.J. Const., art. VIII, § 2.
N.Y. Const., art. VII, § 4–6.
R.I. Const., art. VI, § 16.
Social Security Act, ch. 531, sec. 1104, 49 Stat. 620, 648.
28 U.S.C. 501–518.
31 U.S.C. 3102–3106.
42 U.S.C. 401.
U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 9–10.
10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810).
W.Va. Const., art. X, Sec.§ 4.
Wisc. Const., art. V, § 10(1)(c).

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×