Michael S. Greve – författare

The essays in this volume challenge the widespread belief that the government's environmental policies, unlike those in other areas, are drafted and implemented for the public good and genuinely seek to effect a cleaner environment. The contributors demonstrate through seven important cases that there are strong reasons to reconsider the present command and control approach to environmental policy. They argue that policies and programs are often designed to address political and economic objectives dear to power centers and interest groups. The authors seek to force a critique of present policies and programs and to contribute to the making of an environmental policy more authentically in the public's interest. To that end, the work analyzes the role of organized interests and political institutions in environmental policies, what their rationales may be, and what impact they have on the public welfare.The book provides specific case studies of clean air legislation, biotechnology regulation, Superfund, pollution deadlines, citizen suits, and international environmental regulation. The work constitutes a most timely, well-informed, and persuasive argument for more reliance on other sources than just central government to reduce risk and to enhance environmental well-being.

Over the course of the nation’s history, the Constitution has been turned upside-down, Michael Greve argues in this provocative book. The Constitution’s vision of a federalism in which local, state, and federal government compete to satisfy the preferences of individuals has given way to a cooperative, cartelized federalism that enables interest groups to leverage power at every level for their own benefit. Greve traces this inversion from the Constitution’s founding through today, dispelling much received wisdom along the way.The Upside-Down Constitution shows how federalism’s transformation was a response to states’ demands, not an imposition on them. From the nineteenth-century judicial elaboration of a competitive federal order, to the New Deal transformation, to the contemporary Supreme Court’s impoverished understanding of constitutional structure, and the “devolution” in vogue today, Greve describes a trend that will lead to more government and fiscal profligacy, not less. Taking aim at both the progressive heirs of the New Deal and the vocal originalists of our own time, The Upside-Down Constitution explains why the current fiscal crisis will soon compel a fundamental renegotiation of a new federalism grounded in constitutional principles.

When does federal law trump state law? The arcane topic of federal preemption has become the stuff of public debate and major news stories. The partisan lines are clearly drawn. On one side, consumer advocates, plaintiffs' attorneys, and state officials argue that broad federal preemption claims interfere with the states' historic police power to protect their citizens against corporate misconduct. On the other side, corporations and federal agencies maintain that preemption is a vital safeguard against unwarranted and inconsistent state interferences with the national economy and against aggressive trial lawyers and attorneys general. Fierce struggles along these lines dominate the political debate, judicial decisions, and legal commentary in a wide range of regulatory arenas, from financial regulation to automobile safety; from clean air laws to the regulation of telecommunications, energy, and other network industries; from securities law to consumer products standards; from pharmaceutical drugs to pesticides to outboard motors. In all these areas, billions of dollars hang on regulatory nuances and arcane points of legal interpretation.The preemption debate is also being waged in the shadow of broader, sometimes constitutional arguments concerning the role and utility of federalism and states' rights" in a modern, highly mobile, integrated economy. Legal scholars are sharply divided over both the substance of those arguments and the extent to which they should dominate economic considerations or statutory language. What the preemption debate needs is an examination that reflects the delicate interplay between our constitutional structure and the details of specific regulations. In Federal Preemption: States' Powers, National Interests, Richard A. Epstein and Michael S. Greve, two leading scholars in the field of preemption, have assembled an exceptional group of prominent legal scholars and practicing attorneys for a probing analysis and spirited discussion of these difficult issues. The vo