Disagreements Between States Can Be Settled By

Until the 1940s, the federal government had held that Supreme Court decisions2 applied, under state title, to internal waters and the coastal sea off its coast. Knowing in the 1930s that California`s offshore countries had oil and gas deposits accessible through modern technology, the United States revised its position. After consultations between The Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Ickes, and President Roosevelt, the Attorney General went directly to the Supreme Court to ask it to declare that he held up to three nautical miles on California`s superior rights in the underground countries. A river is more than a nity, it is a treasure. It offers a necessity for life that must be rationed among those in power. New York has the physical power to cut off all water from its jurisdiction. 554 (1983); Nevada, USA, 463 U.S. 110 (1983). However, in other cases, the Court, which focuses its attention on the elements of a case or controversy, has found itself to have no jurisdiction. En Alabama v. Arizona, 1063, where Alabama wanted to require nineteen states to regulate or prohibit the sale of condemned goods, the Court went far beyond finding that it had no jurisdiction and indicated that interstate jurisdiction is exercised only when absolutely necessary, that capital requirements are more stringent in a state-to-state dispute than in an interstate remedy: Individuals. .