Home rule powers are essential parts of the American governing process, but they vary widely from state to state. This authoritative reference work examines the powers and functions of municipalities and counties that operate under home rule within each state. For example, the ability of a local municipality to raise taxes, annex land, or impose regulations is determined by their home rule powers from the states. This volume provides a reliable reference work for researchers and students - a single source that readers can trust for information about: The actions that local governments can - and cannot - pursue States where power is centralized at the capital and where it is not How home rule varies within each state by governmental function Trends in important issues such as taxes, land annexation, and citizen access. The editors organized the book in three parts: an overview of American home rule, including its history; a state-by-state description of home rule authority; and a comparative appendix that allows readers a quick reference source of powers by state. A scholar or governmental expert was selected in each state to prepare the state descriptions. Each chapter follows the same outline of content that allows easy comparison between states. In an era of power and responsibilities devolving from the national government to states and localities, the use of home rule powers has become increasingly important to the health of American government and federalism. Researchers and interested citizens will benefit from this comprehensive reference. Home Rule in America was directed by Dale Krane of the department of public administration, University of Nebraska, Omaha; Platon N. Rigos, department of government and international affairs, University of South Florida; and Melvin Hill, the Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia.

When John Redmond declared ‘No Irishman in America living 3,000 miles away from the homeland ought to think he has a right to dictate to Ireland’ the Irish leader unwittingly made a rod for his own back. In denying the newly-established United Irish League of America any input into party policy formulation, Redmond risked alienating the nation’s largest diaspora should a home rule crisis ever occur. That such a situation developed in 1914 is an established fact. That it was the product of Redmond’s own naivety is open to conjecture. ‘Home Rule from a Transnational Perspective: The Irish Parliamentary Party and the United Irish League of America, 1901-1918’ explores the Irish Party’s subordination of its American affiliate in light of the ultimate demise of constitutional nationalism in Ireland. This book fills a void in Irish American studies. To date, research in this field has been dominated by Clan na Gael and the Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood, particularly the transatlantic links that underpinned the Easter Rising in 1916. Little attention has been paid to the Irish party’s efforts to manage the diaspora in the years preceding the insurrection or to the individuals and organisations that proffered a more moderate solution to the age-old Irish Question. Breaking new ground, it offers a fresh and interesting perspective on the fall of the Home Rule Party and helps to explain the seismic shift towards a more radical approach to gaining independence. This book is essential reading for anyone interested in Irish America, diaspora studies, Irish independence, and/or home rule. It complements the existing historiography and enhances our knowledge of a largely understudied aspect of Irish nationalism.

In Home Rule Nandita Sharma traces the historical formation and political separation of Natives and Migrants from the nineteenth century to the present to theorize the portrayal of Migrants as “colonial invaders.” The imperial-state category of Native, initially a mark of colonized status, has been revitalized in what Sharma terms the Postcolonial New World Order of nation-states. Under postcolonial rule, claims to autochthony—being the Native “people of a place”—are mobilized to define true national belonging. Consequently, Migrants—the quintessential “people out of place”—increasingly face exclusion, expulsion, or even extermination. This turn to autochthony has led to a hardening of nationalism(s). Criteria for political membership have shrunk, immigration controls have intensified, all while practices of expropriation and exploitation have expanded. Such politics exemplify the postcolonial politics of national sovereignty, a politics that Sharma sees as containing our dreams of decolonization. Home Rule rejects nationalisms and calls for the dissolution of the ruling categories of Native and Migrant so we can build a common, worldly place where our fundamental liberty to stay and move is realized.

On America’s western frontier, myths of prosperity concealed the brutal conditions endured by women, slaves, orphans, and the poor. As poverty and unrest took root in eighteenth-century Kentucky, western lawmakers championed ideas about whiteness, manhood, and patriarchal authority to help stabilize a politically fractious frontier. Honor Sachs combines rigorous scholarship with an engaging narrative to examine how conditions in Kentucky facilitated the expansion of rights for white men in ways that would become a model for citizenship in the country as a whole. Endorsed by many prominent western historians, this groundbreaking work is a major contribution to frontier scholarship.

Drawing upon extensive experience in law, government service, teaching, and research, Ronald Cass offers a contribution to the ongoing public discussion on law and society. After opening his discussion with chapters on the rule of law in American society, Cass turns to the hard case of its application to the president of the United States. Through this prism Cass examines the behavior of judges who may not always act according to a "perfect model." This book provides a corrective to criticism of the American legal system raised all too frequently by some members of the academy. Rather than concentrating on relatively minor inconsistencies in the law and slight departures from the ideal of perfectly constrained decision making, Cass argues that the energies of his fellow scholars could be better spent on more serious defects in the legal system. With a special section on the 2000 presidential election, including the Florida recount and Supreme Court decision, The rule of law in America offers a look at a subject of interest to legal scholars and general readers alike.