Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Uo1456 <br /> <br />amend such law. This authority was asserted by Frankfurter <br /> <br />and Landis in their celebrated examination of interstate cqm- <br /> <br />pacts: <br /> <br />"If and when circumstances which now call for a <br /> <br />solution through compact change, Congress is wholly free to <br /> <br />assume control." Frankfurter and Landis, The Compact Clause <br /> <br />of the Constitution -- A study in Interstate Adiustments, 34 <br /> <br />Yale L.J. 685, 727 (192S). It was initially recognized by <br /> <br />the courts in PennsYlvania v. Wheelinq & Belmont Bridqe, 59 <br /> <br />U.s. (18 How.) 421 (1856), where Congressional authorization <br />of a bridge over the Ohio River was challenged as inconsis- <br /> <br />tent with an interstate compact providing that the river <br /> <br />remain free._and open to navigation. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court <br /> <br />sustained the power of Congress to legislate inconsistently <br />with, and thus override, and interstate compact: <br /> <br />The question here is, whether or not the Compact <br />can operate as a restriction upon the power of <br />Congress under the Constitution to regulate <br />commerce among the several states. Clearly not. <br />Otherwise Congress and two states would possess the <br />power to modify and alter the Constitution itself. <br /> <br />S9 U.s. at 433 <br /> <br />Congress' power was confirmed in the first suit by <br /> <br />Arizona following the six-state ratification of the Colorado <br /> <br />River Compact, Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423 (1931). <br /> <br />In seeking to enjoin construction of the Boulder Canyon <br />Project, Arizona argued that Section 6 of the Act, 34 <br />U.S.C. ~617e, which specifies that the authorized dam and <br /> <br />reservoir should be used "First, for river regulation, <br /> <br />improvement of navigation, and flood control..." conflicted <br /> <br />-31- <br />