1. What is the provision of the United States Constitution that may apply in the case of an agreement or compact between two or more states?
Regarding the applicable provision of the United States Constitution is Section 10 of Article I. That section of the Constitution provides in part that “(n)o State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.” 2. Do you think that the proposal of James Raika to just enter into an agreement between the departments falls under that provision? Do you think that his proposal is reasonable? What do you see as the major advantage of that proposal? In your view, what is a major problem with this limited approach? The proposal of James Raika to enter into an agreement between the departments doesn’t fall under the provision without the Consent of Congress.
The University Education is entitle to its rights and such as a moral duty to the state and that the Consent of Congress approval isn’t needed. James Raika’s proposal is reasonable with entering into an agreement with their counterpart in that other states to allow students to attend at in-state rates if a program is not offered in the home state of the student. What I see as an major advantage of the proposal is that the agreement would be easily understood to write and execute a plan. The major problem is introducing the idea of making an agreement between the departments in the two neighboring states may be overstepping the power granted to each one. In my personal view the major problem with this limited approach is that the states breaching there agreements and not following through with proposal plan in the near future.
3. Why do you suppose that Morgan James wants to take a more expanded approach? What do you think are some of the benefits of that approach? What do you feel are the potential problems? What would be the sequence of events for proceeding to try to gain approval? The reason why Morgan James wants to take a more expanded approach is to make sure they follow all the rules and regulations so that there are not any issues concerning higher education. Morgan could probably want to seek full responsibilities of this major innovation approach.
Even though her position as Executive Director’s position is appointed or elected that could be her reasoning into motivating this approach too. The sequence of events to try to gain approval would be the process of growth and passing of laws. In the growth stage of figuring out the proposed it will take the essential actions such as establishing stakeholders, to determine the needs of the neighboring states, and preliminary of forms/documents. Lastly, get the legislation to pass and signed into a law within each state that is party to the agreement.
4. If Margaret Smith is opposed to the idea, in either form, what are the implications? Why do you think she is against the idea? What might you be able to do to help coordinate a discussion between the parties? Margaret Smith seem to disagree by opposing to this idea. One reason suggest is that she does not like the idea legislative efforts at controlling the costs may be circumvented by some attempt at our higher education department to propose an agreement with another state to waive the out-of-state rates in many instances. Secondly, the different roadblocks that could be faced with different issues. What I might be able to do to help coordinate would be to meet with her and the other parties to show the prediction of costs and benefits of different point of views of the result.