STATE GOVERNORS

MULTIPLE

STATE COMPACTS
INTER-STATE

COMPACTS
Uniform States Codes
EAMPLE
Uniform Code of

Education Standards
MULTIPLE-STATE COMPACTS

Uniform States Codes

There is great constitutional - political - power in utilization of Uniformity is accomplished where the federal government fails to act. Such as: The powerful UCC = The Uniform Commercial Code.

How about?

A Uniform States' Code of Education Standards and Curriculum!?!?? USCESC

All education experts are free to forward UNIFORM EDUCATION CODE concepts - published according to volunteer time availability.
Yes!

States Can Enter Into

Any Agreement or Compact

With Any Other State or States

COMPACTS

Equal

The Legal Power of Treaties

Incredible, But True:

The States

Possess

Additional Powers

[Amendment IX]

Known as James Madison's Amendment

Though he wrote

The Virginia Plan

Becoming

The Father of

Not only

The Constitution

but also

The Bill of Rights

Article the eleventh
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Amendment X]

The States' Rights Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Statesrespectively, or to the people.

P.S. The Unemotional "Law Professor" was caught crying as he read these aloud.

P.S. The last time he and Greenspan cried they were infants.

Constitution Authority

for
Interstate Compacts!

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I

Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Interstate Compacts Clause
Yes!

States Can Enter Into

Any Agreement or Compact

With Any Other State or States

Compacts

Equal

The Legal Power of Treaties

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
      construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
      nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
      respectively, or to the people.
The States Possess

Additional Powers

[Amendment IX]

Known as James Madison's Amendment

Though he wrote

The Virginia Plan

Becoming

The Father of

Not only

The Constitution

but also

The Bill of Rights

Article the eleventh
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Amendment X]

The States' Rights Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Statesrespectively, or to the people.

P.S. The Unemotional "Law Professor" was caught crying as he read these aloud.

P.S. The last time he and Greenspan cried they were infants. Interstate Compacts

Background of Clause

Except for the single limitation that the consent of Congress must be obtained, the original inherent sovereign rights of the States to make compacts with each other was not surrendered under the Constitution. 2038 ''The Compact,'' as the Supreme Court has put it, ''adapts to our Union of sovereign States the age-old treaty-making power of independent sovereign nations.'' 2039 In American history, the compact technique can be traced back to the numerous controversies that arose over the ill-defined boundaries of the original colonies. These disputes were usually resolved by negotiation, with the resulting agreement subject to approval by the Crown. 2040 When the political ties with Britain were broken, the Articles of Confederation provided for appeal to Congress in all disputes between two or more States over boundaries or ''any cause whatever'' 2041 and required the approval of Congress for any ''treaty confederation or alliance'' to which a State should be a party. 2042

The Framers of

The Constitution

Went Further.

By the first clause of this section they laid down an unqualified prohibition against ''any treaty, alliance or confederation,'' and by the third clause they required the consent of Congress for ''any agreement or compact.'' The significance of this distinction was pointed out by Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison. 2043 ''As these words ('agreement or compact') could not have been idly or superfluously used by the framers of the Constitution, they cannot be construed to mean the same thing with the word treaty. They evidently mean something more, and were designed to make the prohibition more comprehensive. . . . The word 'agreement,' does not necessarily import and direct any express stipulation; nor is it necessary that it should be in writing.

''If there is a verbal understanding, to which both parties have assented, and upon which both are acting, it is an 'agreement.' And the use of all of these terms, 'treaty,' 'agreement,' 'compact,' show that it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution to use the broadest and most comprehensive terms; and that they anxiously desired to cut off all connection or communication between a State and a foreign power; and we shall fail to execute that evident intention, unless we give to the word 'agreement' its most extended signification; and so apply it as to prohibit every agreement, written or verbal, formal or informal, positive or implied, by the mutual understanding of the parties.'' 2044 But in Virginia v. Tennessee, 2045 decided more than a half century later, the Court shifted position, holding that the unqualified prohibition of compacts and agreements between States without the consent of Congress did not apply to agreements concerning such minor matters as adjustments of boundaries, which have no tendency to increase the political powers of the contracting States or to encroach upon the just supremacy of the United States. Adhering to this later understanding of the clause, the Court found no enhancement of state power quoad the Federal Government through entry into the Multistate Tax Compact and thus sustained the agreement among participating States without congressional consent. 2046

Interstate Compacts:

Subject Matter of

Interstate Compacts

For many years after the Constitution was adopted, boundary disputes continued to predominate as the subject matter of agreements among the States. Since the turn of the twentieth century, however, the interstate compact has been used to an increasing extent as an instrument for state cooperation in carrying out affirmative programs for solving common problems. 2047 The execution of vast public undertak ings, such as the development of the Port of New York by the Port Authority created by compact between New York and New Jersey, flood control, the prevention of pollution, and the conservation and allocation of water supplied by interstate streams, are among the objectives accomplished by this means. Another important use of this device was recognized by Congress in the act of June 6, 1934, 2048 whereby it consented in advance to agreements for the control of crime. The first response to this stimulus was the Crime Compact of 1934, providing for the supervision of parolees and probationers, to which most of the States have given adherence. 2049 Subsequently, Congress has authorized, on varying conditions, compacts touching the production of tobacco, the conservation of natural gas, the regulation of fishing in inland waters, the furtherance of flood and pollution control, and other matters. Moreover, many States have set up permanent commissions for interstate cooperation, which have led to the formation of a Council of State Governments, the creation of special commissions for the study of the crime problem, the problem of highway safety, the trailer problem, problems created by social security legislation, et cetera, and the framing of uniform state legislation for dealing with some of these. 2050
Interstate Compacts

Consent of Congress

The Constitution makes no provision with regard to the time when the consent of Congress shall be given or the mode or form by which it shall be signified. 2051 While the consent will usually precede the compact or agreement, it may be given subsequently where the agreement relates to a matter which could not be well considered until its nature is fully developed. 2052 The required consent is not necessarily an expressed consent; it may be inferred from circumstances. 2053 It is sufficiently indicated, when not necessary to be made in advance, by the approval of proceedings taken under it. 2054 The consent of Congress may be granted conditionally ''upon terms appropriate to the subject and transgressing no constitutional limitations.'' 2055 Congress does not, by giving its consent to a compact, relinquish or restrict its own powers, as for example, its power to regulate interstate commerce. 2056

Grants of

Franchise to Corporations

By Two States

It is competent for a railroad corporation organized under the laws of one State, when authorized so to do by the consent of the State which created it, to accept authority from another State to extend its railroad into such State and to receive a grant of powers to own and control, by lease or purchase, railroads therein and to subject itself to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the second State. Such legislation on the part of two or more States is not, in the absence of inhibitory legislation by Congress, regarded as within the constitutional prohibition of agreements or compacts between States. 2057

Legal Effect of

Interstate Compacts

Whenever, by the agreement of the States concerned and the consent of Congress, an interstate compact comes into operation, it has the same effect as a treaty between sovereign powers. Boundaries established by such compacts become binding upon all citizens of the signatory States and are conclusive as to their rights. 2058 Private rights may be affected by agreements for the equitable apportionment of the water of an interstate stream, without a judicial determination of existing rights. 2059 Valid interstate compacts are within the protection of the obligation of contracts clause, 2060 and a ''sue and be sued'' provision therein operates as a waiver of immunity from suit in federal courts otherwise afforded by the Eleventh Amendment. 2061 The Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may enforce interstate compacts following principles of general contract law. 2062 Congress also has authority to compel compliance with such compacts. 2063 Nor may a State read herself out of a compact which she has ratified and to which Congress has consented by pleading that under the State's constitution as interpreted by the highest state court she had lacked power to enter into such an agreement and was without power to meet certain obligations thereunder. The final construction of the state constitution in such a case rests with the Supreme Court. 2064
Interstate Compacts

Background of Clause .--Except for the single limitation that the consent of Congress must be obtained, the original inherent sovereign rights of the States to make compacts with each other was not surrendered under the Constitution. 2038 ''The Compact,'' as the Supreme Court has put it, ''adapts to our Union of sovereign States the age-old treaty-making power of independent sovereign nations.'' 2039 In American history, the compact technique can be traced back to the numerous controversies that arose over the ill-defined boundaries of the original colonies. These disputes were usually resolved by negotiation, with the resulting agreement subject to approval by the Crown. 2040 When the political ties with Britain were broken, the Articles of Confederation provided for appeal to Congress in all disputes between two or more States over boundaries or ''any cause whatever'' 2041 and required the approval of Congress for any ''treaty confederation or alliance'' to which a State should be a party. 2042

The Framers of the Constitution went further. By the first clause of this section they laid down an unqualified prohibition against ''any treaty, alliance or confederation,'' and by the third clause they required the consent of Congress for ''any agreement or compact.'' The significance of this distinction was pointed out by Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison. 2043 ''As these words ('agreement or compact') could not have been idly or superfluously used by the framers of the Constitution, they cannot be construed to mean the same thing with the word treaty. They evidently mean something more, and were designed to make the prohibition more comprehensive. . . . The word 'agreement,' does not necessarily import and direct any express stipulation; nor is it necessary that it should be in writing.

''If there is a verbal understanding, to which both parties have assented, and upon which both are acting, it is an 'agreement.' And the use of all of these terms, 'treaty,' 'agreement,' 'compact,' show that it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution to use the broadest and most comprehensive terms; and that they anxiously desired to cut off all connection or communication between a State and a foreign power; and we shall fail to execute that evident intention, unless we give to the word 'agreement' its most extended signification; and so apply it as to prohibit every agreement, written or verbal, formal or informal, positive or implied, by the mutual understanding of the parties.'' 2044 But in Virginia v. Tennessee, 2045 decided more than a half century later, the Court shifted position, holding that the unqualified prohibition of compacts and agreements between States without the consent of Congress did not apply to agreements concerning such minor matters as adjustments of boundaries, which have no tendency to increase the political powers of the contracting States or to encroach upon the just supremacy of the United States. Adhering to this later understanding of the clause, the Court found no enhancement of state power quoad the Federal Government through entry into the Multistate Tax Compact and thus sustained the agreement among participating States without congressional consent. 2046

Subject Matter of Interstate Compacts .--For many years after the Constitution was adopted, boundary disputes continued to predominate as the subject matter of agreements among the States. Since the turn of the twentieth century, however, the interstate compact has been used to an increasing extent as an instrument for state cooperation in carrying out affirmative programs for solving common problems. 2047 The execution of vast public undertak ings, such as the development of the Port of New York by the Port Authority created by compact between New York and New Jersey, flood control, the prevention of pollution, and the conservation and allocation of water supplied by interstate streams, are among the objectives accomplished by this means. Another important use of this device was recognized by Congress in the act of June 6, 1934, 2048 whereby it consented in advance to agreements for the control of crime. The first response to this stimulus was the Crime Compact of 1934, providing for the supervision of parolees and probationers, to which most of the States have given adherence. 2049 Subsequently, Congress has authorized, on varying conditions, compacts touching the production of tobacco, the conservation of natural gas, the regulation of fishing in inland waters, the furtherance of flood and pollution control, and other matters. Moreover, many States have set up permanent commissions for interstate cooperation, which have led to the formation of a Council of State Governments, the creation of special commissions for the study of the crime problem, the problem of highway safety, the trailer problem, problems created by social security legislation, et cetera, and the framing of uniform state legislation for dealing with some of these. 2050

Consent of Congress .--The Constitution makes no provision with regard to the time when the consent of Congress shall be given or the mode or form by which it shall be signified. 2051 While the consent will usually precede the compact or agreement, it may be given subsequently where the agreement relates to a matter which could not be well considered until its nature is fully developed. 2052 The required consent is not necessarily an expressed consent; it may be inferred from circumstances. 2053 It is sufficiently indicated, when not necessary to be made in advance, by the approval of proceedings taken under it. 2054 The consent of Congress may be granted conditionally ''upon terms appropriate to the subject and transgressing no constitutional limitations.'' 2055 Congress does not, by giving its consent to a compact, relinquish or restrict its own powers, as for example, its power to regulate interstate commerce. 2056

Grants of Franchise to Corporations by Two States .--It is competent for a railroad corporation organized under the laws of one State, when authorized so to do by the consent of the State which created it, to accept authority from another State to extend its railroad into such State and to receive a grant of powers to own and control, by lease or purchase, railroads therein and to subject itself to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the second State. Such legislation on the part of two or more States is not, in the absence of inhibitory legislation by Congress, regarded as within the constitutional prohibition of agreements or compacts between States. 2057

Legal Effect of Interstate Compacts .--Whenever, by the agreement of the States concerned and the consent of Congress, an interstate compact comes into operation, it has the same effect as a treaty between sovereign powers. Boundaries established by such compacts become binding upon all citizens of the signatory States and are conclusive as to their rights. 2058 Private rights may be affected by agreements for the equitable apportionment of the water of an interstate stream, without a judicial determination of existing rights. 2059 Valid interstate compacts are within the protection of the obligation of contracts clause, 2060 and a ''sue and be sued'' provision therein operates as a waiver of immunity from suit in federal courts otherwise afforded by the Eleventh Amendment. 2061 The Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may enforce interstate compacts following principles of general contract law. 2062 Congress also has authority to compel compliance with such compacts. 2063 Nor may a State read herself out of a compact which she has ratified and to which Congress has consented by pleading that under the State's constitution as interpreted by the highest state court she had lacked power to enter into such an agreement and was without power to meet certain obligations thereunder. The final construction of the state constitution in such a case rests with the Supreme Court. 2064

Footnotes

Clause 3. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

[Footnote 2027] Clyde Mallory Lines v. Alabama, 296 U.S. 261, 265 (1935); Cannon v. City of New Orleans, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 577, 581 (1874); Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U.S. 273, 283 (1879).

[Footnote 2028] Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80 (1877); Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U.S. 691 (1883); Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U.S. 444 (1887).

[Footnote 2029] Cooley v. Port Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299, 314 (1851); Ex parte McNiel, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 236 (1872); Inman Steamship Company v. Tinker, 94 U.S. 238, 243 (1877); Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U.S. 423 (1880); City of Vicksburg v. Tobin, 100 U.S. 430 (1880); Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, 105 U.S. 559 (1882).

[Footnote 2030] Huse v. Glover, 119 U.S. 543, 549 (1886).

[Footnote 2031] Steamship Co. v. Portwardens, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 31 (1867).

[Footnote 2032] Peete v. Morgan, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 581 (1874).

[Footnote 2033] Morgan v. Louisiana, 118 U.S. 455, 462 (1886).

[Footnote 2034] Wiggins Ferry Co. v. City of East St. Louis, 107 U.S. 365 (1883). See also Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196, 212 (1885); Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326, 338 (1887); Osborne v. City of Mobile, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 479, 481 (1873).

[Footnote 2035] 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 204, 217 (1871).

[Footnote 2036] Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 45 (1849).

[Footnote 2037] Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).

[Footnote 2038] Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 185, 209 (1837).

[Footnote 2039] Hinderlider v. La Plata Co., 304 U.S. 92, 104 (1938).

[Footnote 2040] Frankfurter and Landis, The Compact Clause of the Constitution--A Study in Interstate Adjustments, 34 Yale L.J. 685, 691 (1925).

[Footnote 2041] Article IX.

[Footnote 2042] Article VI.

[Footnote 2043] 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540 (1840).

[Footnote 2044] Id., 570, 571, 572.

[Footnote 2045] 148 U.S. 503, 518 (1893). See also Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S. 223, 244 (1900).

[Footnote 2046] United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm., 434 U.S. 452 (1978). See also New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U.S. 363 (1976).

[Footnote 2047] Frankfurter and Landis, The Compact Clause of the Constitution--A Study in Interstate Adjustments, 34 Yale L.J. 685 (1925); F. Zimmerman and M. Wendell, Interstate Compacts Since 1925 (Chicago: 1951); F. Zimmerman and M. Wendell, The Law and Use of Interstate Compacts (Chicago: 1961).

[Footnote 2048] 48 Stat. 909 (1934).

[Footnote 2049] F. Zimmerman and M. Wendell, Interstate Compacts Since 1925 (Chicago: 1951), 91.

[Footnote 2050] 7 U.S.C. Sec. 515; 15 U.S.C. Sec. 717j; 16 U.S.C. Sec. 552; 33 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 11, 567-567b.

[Footnote 2051] Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1, 85 (1823).

[Footnote 2052] Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893).

[Footnote 2053] Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 39 (1871).

[Footnote 2054] Wharton v. Wise, 153 U.S. 155, 173 (1894).

[Footnote 2055] James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (1937). See also Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341, 345 (1934). When it approved the New York-New Jersey Waterfront Compact, 67 Stat. 541, Congress, for the first time, expressly gave its consent to the subsequent adoption of implementing legislation by the participating States. De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 145 (1960).

[Footnote 2056] Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 421, 433 (1856).

[Footnote 2057] St. Louis & San Francisco Railway v. James, 161 U.S. 545, 562 (1896).

[Footnote 2058] Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 185, 209 (1837); Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 725 (1838).

[Footnote 2059] Hinderlider v. La Plata Co., 304 U.S. 92, 104 , 106 (1938).

[Footnote 2060] Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1, 13 (1823); Virginia v. West Virginia, 246 U.S. 565 (1918). See also Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 54 U.S. (13 How.) 518, 566 (1852); Olin v. Kitzmiller, 259 U.S. 260 (1922).

[Footnote 2061] Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Comm., 359 U.S. 275 (1959).

[Footnote 2062] Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124 (1987). If the compact makes no provision for resolving impasse, then the Court may exercise its jurisdiction to apportion waters of interstate streams. In doing so, however, the Court will not rewrite the compact by ordering appointment of a third voting commissioner to serve as a tie-breaker; rather, the Court will attempt to apply the compact to the extent that its provisions govern the controversy. Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (1983).

[Footnote 2063] Virginia v. West Virginia, 246 U.S. 565, 601 (1918).

[Footnote 2064] Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22 (1951).

previous | Annotations p. 58

Sponsored Links

BlackBerry� bundle for legal: Get 5 BlackBerry devices and everything you need to get up and running. Plus, a 3-month trial of METAmessage� - Legal. Hurry�offer ends soon!
Amicus Attorney: Easy-to-use and intuitive - experience great practice management software that works the way you do. Free Trial.
U.S. Legal Forms, Inc.: **Over 36,000 Legal Forms** Stop Reinventing the Wheel each time you draft a legal document. Save Time and Money! Visit USlegalforms.com Today!
PCLaw & PCLawPro: ONE integrated system to manage your whole office. Provides time billing, accounting and practice management. Download a FREE demo.
Online Paralegal Services: Proxilaw takes care of your document preparation and filing chores. Incorporation, living trusts, LLCs, divorce & more.
Tabs3 and PracticeMaster: Reliable billing and practice management software for solo to mid-sized firms. Recommended by 94% of firms that use them.
AbacusLaw: Complete law office software for time, billing, accounting, calendars, clients and cases. Quick to learn, easy to use. Free demo!
LexisNexis Time Matters 7.0.: Use Time Matters 7.0 and exceed client expectations with a complete view of your practice.
Find a Lawyer: Our free service locates Bankruptcy, Criminal, DUI, Family, Immigration, Personal Injury, Real Estate, or Trademark lawyers in your area who can help you with your legal issues.
Lawyer Marketing: web sites, attorney written custom content, visibility on FindLaw.com, search engine optimization.
LegalConnection: Need an attorney? Our free service connects you to lawyers who can help you with your case.
previous | Annotations p. 58

Sponsored Links

BlackBerry� bundle for legal: Get 5 BlackBerry devices and everything you need to get up and running. Plus, a 3-month trial of METAmessage� - Legal. Hurry�offer ends soon!
Amicus Attorney: Easy-to-use and intuitive - experience great practice management software that works the way you do. Free Trial.
U.S. Legal Forms, Inc.: **Over 36,000 Legal Forms** Stop Reinventing the Wheel each time you draft a legal document. Save Time and Money! Visit USlegalforms.com Today!
PCLaw & PCLawPro: ONE integrated system to manage your whole office. Provides time billing, accounting and practice management. Download a FREE demo.
Online Paralegal Services: Proxilaw takes care of your document preparation and filing chores. Incorporation, living trusts, LLCs, divorce & more.
Tabs3 and PracticeMaster: Reliable billing and practice management software for solo to mid-sized firms. Recommended by 94% of firms that use them.
AbacusLaw: Complete law office software for time, billing, accounting, calendars, clients and cases. Quick to learn, easy to use. Free demo!
LexisNexis Time Matters 7.0.: Use Time Matters 7.0 and exceed client expectations with a complete view of your practice.
Find a Lawyer: Our free service locates Bankruptcy, Criminal, DUI, Family, Immigration, Personal Injury, Real Estate, or Trademark lawyers in your area who can help you with your legal issues.
Lawyer Marketing: web sites, attorney written custom content, visibility on FindLaw.com, search engine optimization.
LegalConnection: Need an attorney? Our free service connects you to lawyers who can help you with your case.

STATE GOVERNORS

Addresses,

Phone Numbers

E-mail
of

State Governors

Uniform

Code of Education Standards

How about?

USCESC

A Uniform States'

Code of

Education Standards

and

Curriculum!?!??

If D.C. will not act-

the people and states must.

All education experts are free to forward UNIFORM EDUCATION CODE concepts - published according to volunteer time availability.
THE

UNIFORM EDUCATION CODE
There is great constitutional - political - power in utilization of MULTIPLE-STATE COMPACTS. Uniformity is accomplished where the federal government fails to act. Such as: The powerful UCC = The Uniform Commercial Code. How about? A Uniform States' Code of Education Standards and Curriculum!?!?? USCESC

Alabama Governor
Bob Riley
State Capitol N-104
600 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36130-2751
Fax:(334)353-0004
Tel:(334)242-7100
email: constituentsvcs@governor.state.al.us
web: http://www.governor.state.al.us

Alaska
Governor Frank Murkowski
State Capitol
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811
Fax:(907)465-3532
Tel:(907)465-3500
email: office_of_the_the-governor@gov.state.ak.us
web: http://www.gov.state.ak.us

American Samoa
Tauese P.F. Sunia
Executive Office Building, Pago
Pago, AS 96799
phone:011/684/ 633-4116
011/684/ 633-4116

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano
State Capitol
West Wing
1700 W. Washington, 9th Fl.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Fax:(602)542-7601
Tel:(602)542-4331 11/98
email: azgov@azgov.state.az.us
web: http://www.governor.state.az.us

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
250 State Capitol Bldg.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Fax:(501)682-1382
Tel:(501)682-2345
email: mike.huckabee@state.ar.us
web: http://www.state.ar.us/governor/governor.html

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol
1st Fl.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax:(916)445-4633
Tel:(916)445-2841
Web page:http://www.ca.gov/s/governor/mail.html

Colorado Governor Bill Owens
136 State Capitol Bldg.
Denver, CO 80203-1792
Fax:(303)866-2003
Tel:(303)866-2471
email: governorowens@state.co.us
web: http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/governor_office.html

Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell
State Capitol
210 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, CT 06106
Fax:(203)524-7396
Tel:(203)566-4840
email: governor.jodirell@po.state.ct.us
web: http://www.state.ct.us/governor

Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner
Legislative Hall
Dover, DE 19901
Fax:(302)577-3118
Tel:(302)577-3210 11/00
email: gminner@state.de.us
web: http://www.state.de.us/governor/index.htm

District of Columbia Mayor Tony Williams
One Judiciary Square
441 Fourth St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Fax:(202)727-6561
Tel:(202)727-2980
web: http://www.ci.washington.dc.us

Florida Governor Jeb Bush
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Fax:(850)487-0801
Tel:(850)488-4441 11/02
email: fl_governor@eog.state.fl.us
web: http://www.eog.state.fr.us

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue
203 State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334
Fax:(404)656-2612
Tel:(404)656-1776
email: www.ganet.org/governor/contact.html
web: http://www.ganet.org/governor

Guam Governor Felix Camacho

Executive Chamber, P.O. Box 2950,
Agana, GU 96932
Tel:(671) 472-8931
email: governor@ns.gov.us
web: http://www.gov.us/webtax/govoff.html

Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle
5 State Capitol
Honolulu, HI 96813
Fax:(808)586-0006
Tel:(808)586-0034
email: gov@gov.state.hi.us
web: http://gov.state.hi.us

Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne
State Capitol Bldg.
West Wing, 2nd Fl.
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0034
Fax:(208)334-2175
Tel:(208)334-2100 11/98
web: http://www.state.id.us/gov/govhmpg.htm

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
207 State Capitol Bldg.
Springfield, IL 62706
Fax:(217)782-3560
Tel:(217)782-6830
email: governor@state.il.us
web: http://www.state.il.us/gov

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
206 State House
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Fax:(317)232-3443
Tel:(317)232-4567 11/00
email: MDANIELS@state.n.us
web: http://www.ai.org/gov/index.html

Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack
State Capitol Bldg.
Des Moines, IA 50319
Fax:(515)281-6611
(515)281-5211
web: http://www.state.ia.us/government/governor/index.htm

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Two State Capitol
Topeka, KS 66612-1590
Fax:(913)296-7973
Tel:(913)296-3232
email: Constituent@governor.wpo.state.ks.us
web: http://www.state.ks.us/public/governor/comment.html

Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher
700 State Capitol
Frankfort, KY 40601
Fax:(502)564-2517
Tel:(502)564-2611 Check
email: governor@mail.state.ky.us
web: http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/gov/govmenu6.htm

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco
State Capitol
P.O. Box 94004
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004
Fax:(504)342-0002
Tel:(504)342-7015 Check
email: lagov@linknet.net
web: http://www.gov.state.la.us

Maine Governor Joh Baldacci
State House Station 1
Augusta, ME 04333
Fax:(207)287-1034
Tel:(207)287-3531 11/98
email: governor@state.me.us
web: http://www.state.me.us/governor/baldacci/index.html

Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich Jr.
State House
100 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401
Fax:(410)974-3275
Tel:(410)974-3901
email: http://www.gov.state.md.us/mail
web: http://www.gov.state.md.us

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
State House
Office of the Governor
Boston, MA 02133
Fax:(617)727-9725
Tel:(617)727-3666
email: GOffice@state.ma.us
web: http://www.mass.gov/protal/index.jsp?pageID=aghome&agid=gov

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm
Olds Plaza
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, MI 48909
Fax:(517)335-6863
Tel:(517)373-7858
email: migov@exec.state.mi.us
web: http://www.michigan.gov/gov

Minnesota Governor Tom Pawlentry
130 State Capitol
St. Paul, MN 55155
Fax:(612)296-2089
Tel:(612)296-3391
email: tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us
web: http://www.state.mn.us

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour
P.O. Box 139
Jackson, MS 39205
Fax:(601)359-3741
Tel:(601)359-3100 check

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt
216 State Capitol
P.O. Box 720
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Fax:(314)751-1495
Tel:(573)751-3222 11/00
email: mogov@mail.mo.gov
web: http://www.gov.state.mo.us

Montana Governor Judy Martz
204 State Capitol
Helena, MT 59620
Fax:(406)444-4151
Tel:(406)444-3111
web: http://state.mt.us/governor/governor.htm

Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns
State Capitol
P.O. Box 94848
Lincoln, NE 68509-4848
Fax:(402)471-6031
Tel:(402)471-2244
email: jodee@mail.state.ne.us
Web: http://gov.nol.org/

Nevada Governor Kenny C. Guinn
Executive Chambers
Capitol Complex
Carson City, NV 89710
Fax:(702)687-4486
Tel:(702)687-5670
email: governor@govmail.state.nv.us
web: http://www.state.nv.us/gov/gov.htm

New Hampshire Governor Craig Benson
208-214 State House
Concord, NH 03301
Fax:(603)271-2130
Tel:(603)271-2121
web: http://www.state.nh.us/governor

New Jersey Governor James McGreevey
State House
Trenton, NJ 08625
Fax:(609)292-5212
Tel:(609)292-6000
web: http:/www.state.nj.us/governor

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson
State Capitol Bldg
. Santa Fe, NM 87503
Fax:(505)827-3026
Tel:(505)827-3000
email: gov@gov.state.nm.us
web: http://www.governor.state.nm.us

New York Governor George E. Pataki
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
Fax:(518)474-3767
Tel:(518)474-8390
email: gov.pataki@chamber.state.ny.us
web: http://www.state.ny.us/governor

North Carolina Governor Mike Easley
116 W. Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603-8001
Fax:(919)733-2120
Tel:(919)733-4240
email: governor.office@governor.ncmail.net
web: http://www.governor.state.nc.us/Gov

North Dakota Governor John Hoeven
State Capitol
600 E. Boulevard Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58505-0001
Fax:(701)328-2205
Tel:(701)328-2200
email: governor@state.nd.us
web: http://www.governor.state.nd.us

Ohio Governor Bob Taft
Vern Riffe Ctr.
77 S. High St., 30th Fl.
Columbus, OH 43215
Fax:(614)466-9354
Tel:(614)644-0813
web: http://www.state.oh.us/gov

Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry
212 State Capitol
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Fax:(405)521-3353
Tel:(405)521-2342
email: governor@oklaosf.state.ok.us
web: http://www.state.ok.us/~governor

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski
254 State Capitol
Salem, OR 97310
Fax:(503)378-6827
Tel:(503)378-4582
web: http://www.governor.state.or.us

Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell
225 Main Capitol Bldg.
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Fax:(717)783-4429
Tel:(717)787-2500
email: governor@state.pa.us
web: http://www.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Governor/overview.html

Puerto Rico Governor Sila M. Calderon
La Fortaleza, San Juan, PR 00901
Tel: (787)721-7000
email: webmaster@govpr.org
web: http://fortaleza.govpr.org

Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri
State House
Providence, RI 02903
Fax:(401)273-5729
Tel:(401)277-2080 ext 227
email: rigov@gov.state.ri.us
web: http://www.state.ri.us

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford
State House
P.O. Box 11369
Columbia, SC 29211
Fax:(803)734-5167
Tel:(803)734-2100 11/02
email: governor@govoepp.state.sc.us
web: http://www.state.sc.us/governor

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds
State Capitol
500 E. Capitol Ave.
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Fax:(605)773-5844
Tel:(605)773-3212 1
email: sdgov@gov.state.sd.us
web: http://www.state.sd.us/state/executive/governor/governor.htm

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen
State Capitol
Nashville, TN 37243-0001
Fax:(615)532-9711
Tel:(615)741-2001
email: phil.bredesen@state.tn.us
web: http://www.state.tn.us/governor

Texas Governor Rick Perry
State Capitol
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, TX 78711 Fax:(512)463-2000
Tel:(512)463-1762 11/98
Tel:(800)252-9600 (Texas callers only)
web: http://www.governor.state.tx.us

US Virgin Islands Governor Charles Turnbull
Government House
21-22 Kongens Gade
Charlote Amalie
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands
web: http://www.usvi.org/

Utah Governor Olene Walker
210 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Fax:(801)538-1528
Tel:(801)538-1734
email: governor@utah.gov
web: http://www.governor.state.ut.us

Vermont Governor James H. Douglas
Pavilion Office Bldg.
5th Fl.
109 State St
. Montpelier, VT 05609
Fax:(802)828-3339
Tel:(802)828-3333 11/00
email: jdouglas@state.vt.us
web: http://www.state.vt.us/

Virginia Governor Mark Warner
State Capitol
Richmond, VA 23219
Fax:(804)371-6351
Tel:(804)786-2211
http://www.state.va.us/governor/

Washington Governor Gary Locke
Legislative Bldg.
P.O. Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002
Fax:(360)753-4110
Tel:(360)753-6780
email: Governor.Locke@Governor.wa.gov
web: http://www.wa.gov/governor

West Virginia Governor Bob Wise
State Capitol Building
Charleston, WV 25305
Fax:(304)342-7025
Tel:(304)558-2000
email: governor@state.wv.us
web: http://www.state.wv.us/governor/default.htm

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle
State Capitol
P.O. Box 7863
Madison, WI 53707-7863
Fax:(608)267-8983
Tel:(608)266-1212
email: wisgov@mail.state.wi.us
web: http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us

Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal
State Capitol
Cheyenne, WY 82002-0010
Fax:(307)632-3909
Tel:(307)777-7434
email: Governor@missc.state.wy.us
web: http://www.state.wy.us/governor/governor_home.html