S. 1157, the Dairy Consumers and Producers Protection Act of 2001: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session, July 25, 2001, Volume 4
U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002 - Agricultural price supports - 232 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
Agriculture allow amount approved Attachment authority average believe benefits beverage cents Chairman Chairman Leahy cheese Commerce Clause Committee common common market Commonwealth Compact Commission competition concerns Congress Constitution consumers continue cost Court dairy farms decision designed economic effect effort England established fact farmers federal fluid milk Foods fresh gallon going hearing higher impact important increase industry interstate compact issue land legislation less loss Massachusetts milk prices milk production million Natural negative North Northeast Dairy Compact operation pact paid percent political presented price regulation processing processors procurement producers programs protect purchases question reason receive record regional regulation representatives result retail Senator serve statement Suiza supply Thank tion trade United Wisconsin York
Page 51 - Union, at a time and place to be agreed on, to take into consideration the trade of the United States ; to examine the relative situations and trade of the said States ; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their common interest and their permanent harmony...
Page 14 - Nation, that no home embargoes will withhold his exports, and no foreign state will by customs duties or regulations exclude them. Likewise, every consumer may look to the free competition from every producing area in the Nation to protect him from exploitation by any.
Page 51 - When victory relieved the Colonies from the pressure for solidarity that war had exerted, a drift toward anarchy and commercial warfare between states began. ". . . each State would legislate according to its estimate of its own interests, the importance of its own products, and the local advantages or disadvantages of its position in a political or commercial view.
Page 53 - United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission 434 US 452 (1978) (reciprocal legislation designed to enhance tax administration not an interstate compact); Bode v.
Page 51 - ... and for that purpose the General Assembly of Virginia in January of 1786 named commissioners and proposed their meeting with those from other states. The desire of the Forefathers to federalize regulation of foreign and interstate commerce stands in sharp contrast to their jealous preservation of the state's power over its internal affairs. No other federal power was so universally assumed to be necessary, no other state power was so readily relinquished.
Page 49 - I am a professor of law at New York University School of Law, where I have specialized in Constitutional Law for more than nine years.
Page 51 - The same want of a general power over commerce led to an exercise of the power, separately, by the States, which not only proved abortive, but engendered rival, conflicting, and angry regulations.
Page 14 - economic protectionism — that is, regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening outof-state competitors.
Page 49 - Monitors legislation and regulations. (Affiliated with the Milk Industry Foundation, the National Cheese Institute, and the International Ice Cream Assn.) International Ice Cream Assn., 1250 H St.
Page 51 - The sole purpose for which Virginia initiated the movement which ultimately produced the Constitution was "to take into consideration the trade of the United States; to examine the relative situations and trade of the said States; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their common interest and their permanent harmony...