[31] U.S. Const., art. I, 8, C. 3 (regulating the power of Congress to “regulate trade with foreign nations and between states and with Indian tribes”). For a discussion of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the trade clause, see Congressional Research Service, Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, supra note 16, at 176-301. A compact for which much information is available online is the Multistate Tax Compact, which came into effect in 1967. Its members include 15 states and the District of Columbia. [76] The pact available on the Multistate Tax Commission`s website defined the commission to pursue the following objectives: According to the Council of State Governments, intergovernmental pacts are adopted by states to ensure a cooperative approach between states on specific political issues. Political issues may include promoting common agendas such as environmental policy (for example. B the Blue River Pact), the creation of authorities with several states to solve issues such as transportation (for example. B Railroad Passenger Transportation Compact), the definition of common rules and rules (.

B, for example, the “Driver Lic Compact” and the resolution of intergovernmental disputes). [1] Many of the compact offers in the National Center for Interstate Compacts database contain links to the intergovernmental authorities` websites that are created by these compacts. These intergovernmental agency websites, such as the Multistate Tax Commission described above, may contain an agency`s pact, statutes, other internal administrative documents, guidelines for Member States, annual reports and other documents. Examples include: [34] Council of State Governments, A Guide to Development, Content and Format: Interstate Compacts No. 1 (2003), www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/ncic/Format.pdf (June 18, 2018). Mr Buenger et al. stress that the elements of contract formation – supply, acceptance, mutual agreement or “meeting of minds” and consideration – should be taken into account in a legal analysis of intergovernmental pacts. Buenger et al., supra note 2, at 43-48. Decision-making procedures in a compact are defined in the compact itself. In the case of pacts that envisage making future decisions, decision-making may be delegated to the intergovernmental agency constituted by the Covenant, which serves representatives of the contracting states to the Covenant or to another governing body with representatives of the parties, such as.

B a board of directors. The process of negotiating pacts often involves the creation of joint committees, including members appointed by the governors of the countries under negotiation. [5] Other methods include direct negotiations by the governors themselves, the promotion of pacts by the National Conference of State Legislators[6] and the adoption of a pact proposed by a state legislator and the invitation of that state to adopt other identical statutes. [7] States that negotiate notes themselves may invite representatives of the federal authorities to participate; When Congress invited negotiations on a water allocation pact that would involve the District of Columbia, a non-governmental jurisdiction whose legislative decree is subject to congressional review,[8] Congress said that federal officials would be needed in negotiations. [9] According to the Connecticut General Assembly`s Office of Legislative Research, the policy consent clause clause is the standard on which the Supreme Court bases its decisions regarding intergovernmental pacts. At the heart of this argument is that the decision “whether the pact contains a political subject that affects the interests of the Confederacy or the interests of the uncompensated sister states, in which case congressional approval is necessary,” is the only basis on which the constitutionality of such agreements lies.