Uniform Legislation in the United States
| Author | Rodney L. Mott |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271624020700111 |
| Published date | 01 January 1940 |
| Date | 01 January 1940 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
79
Uniform
Legislation
in
the
United
States
By
RODNEY
L.
MOTT
THE
United
States
would
appear
to
be
a
fertile
soil
for
the
growth
of
uniformity
in
legislation.
The
forty-
eight
states
present
no
wide
differences
in
political
ideals
or
governmental
ma-
chinery ;
there
are
no
deeply
diversified
legal
habits,
economic
interests,
or
so-
cial
classes;
our
people
have
a
common
cultural
heritage
and
a
common
lan-
guage ;
the
Nation
possesses
a
form
of
business
organization
and
a
system
of
communications
which
has
steadily
cen-
tralized
commercial
life;
and
the
consti-
tutional
framework
promotes,
rather
than
impedes,
common
action
by
the
states.
If
uniform
laws
thrive
where
there
is
social
homogeneity,
American
condi-
tions
should
furnish
not
only
an
ideal
setting
for
them
but
also
the
genera-
tive
forces
necessary
for
their
devel-
opment.
FEDERAL
POWERS
AND
STATE
LEGISLATION
A
long
tradition
of
increasing
legal
uniformity,
moreover,
has
resulted
from
the
gradual
extension
of
national
powers.
The
Federal
Constitution
was
estab-
lished
to
eliminate
commercial
discrim-
inations
between
the
states,
and
as
the
need
for
unvaried
regulation
has
grown,
the
powers
of
the
central
government
have
grown
to
meet
that
need.
This
has
been
accomplished
in
part
by
amend-
ments
to
the
Constitution
and
in
part
by
the
decisions
of
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
giving
an
increasingly
broad
interpretation
to
the
power
of
the
Federal
Government
to
regulate
&dquo;com-
merce
among
the
several
states.&dquo;
With
the
approval
of
the
Court,
uniformity
has
been
established
in
such
a
variety
of
matters
as
railroad
fares,
labels
on
canned
foods,
regulation
of
monopolies,
licensing
of
radio
broadcasting,
and
con-
trol
of
securities
exchanges.
There
are,
however,
very
definite
lim-
its
to
the
use
of
Federal
powers
to
reduce
variation
in
the
legal
systems
of
these
United
States.
Even
a
nationally
minded
Supreme
Court
could
not
bring
itself
to
decree
that
the
regulation
of
local
as
well
as
interstate
business,
which
was
attempted
under
the
National
In-
dustrial
Recovery
Act,
was
within
the
powers
granted
to
Congress
by
the
Con-
stitution.
If
there
were
no
constitutional
doors
to
unlock,
high
barriers
would
still
need
to
be
hurdled
before
uniformity
could
be
secured
by
Federal
fiat.
The
experience
with
national
control
of
the
liquor
traf-
fic
under
prohibition,
and
with
price
regulation
under
the
short-lived
Na-
tional
Recovery
Administration,
was
not
entirely
happy.
It
was
evident
in
both
cases
that
legislative
uniformity
which
was
not
accompanied
by
intelligent
and
skillful
administration
of
the
law
would
be
a
mirage.
Every
field
which
the
Federal
Govern-
ment
enters
produces
conflicts
between
the national
statute
and
state
laws
at
innumerable
points.
One
of
the
prin-
cipal
objections
to
the
proposed
amend-
ment
giving
the
Federal
Government
control
over
child
labor
is
that
under
it
the
National
Government
might
at-
tempt
to
centralize
education
as
well.
A
national
marriage
and
divorce
law
has
often
been
proposed
to
replace
the
pres-
ent
situation
under
which
the
states
com-
pete
for
marriage
and
divorce
business
by
being
more
lenient
than
their
neigh-
bors.
A
single
code
in
this
field
would
certainly
be
desirable,
but
only
a
legal
neophyte
would
fancy
the
task
of
ad-
justing
a
national
law
on
this
subject
to
the
diverse
state
rules
on
such
correla-
at SAGE PUBLICATIONS on November 29, 2012ann.sagepub.comDownloaded from
To continue reading
Request your trial