The governments of Canada, the United States, and Mexico have decided to dramatically increase the level of economic and social integration. In an effort to make it easier for labor to move throughout the continent, the three countries agreed to a treaty that allows the citizens of the three countries to work and live in any one of the countries without having to go through a complicated visa and work permit application process. The treaty and accompanying implementing legislation were approved by all three countries according to their constitutional processes.
It was assumed that workers would move with their families, so the treaty addressed the portability of school records, and the harmonization of curricula. The three governments wanted there to be some similarity across the countries regarding what is taught at each grade level, so that parents moving among countries would know what their children would be taught, and would not have to worry about their children having to repeat lessons or do work for which they had not been prepared previously. Accordingly, the treaty gave each country's executive branch the right to implement agreed upon standards and curricula at the local level.[1]
During the negotiations, the American negotiators realized that the federal government could not force state and local governments to teach the new curricula, so, the implementing legislation includes incentives that are designed to induce the states to voluntarily agree to the new curricula. Specifically, states that adopt the new curricula would receive a 30% increase in the federal funding that they received for primary and secondary education. For the average state, this would equal an increase of approximately 7% in the size of the state budget.
However, school curricula was not the only area were the governments felt that international harmonization was needed. They also saw the need to make licensing portable as well. Many professionals (i.e. engineers, doctors, real estate agents, etc.) require licenses from state governments to sell their services, and getting new licenses in different jurisdictions can be expensive and difficult. In order to facilitate the easy movement of labor and capital among the three countries, it was agreed in the treaty that all of them would make licensing as portable as possible. To this end, the US government as passed implementing legislation giving the executive branch the right to set national standards for professional licensing in many areas.
Imagine that you are the Attorney General of Idaho. At meeting after meeting, you have heard the Governor of Idaho, Betty Walters, rail against the treaty as an outrageous invasion of state sovereignty, and a naked attempt to change the balance of power between the states and the federal government. She is furious about the fact that the federal government is trying to take away the states' traditional power to regulate professional licensing through the use of the treaty power, and then offering them a bribe to get them to accept federal standards in education.
The governor has asked for your opinion on two issues:
1. Is the federal government's use of the treaty power to take over control of professional licensing constitutional?
2. Is the federal government's plan to offer funds to induce state compliance with its curricula harmonization scheme constitutional?