Changes

The Federal Arbitration Act was thought to represent an exercise of [[U.S. Congress|Congress]]' Article III power to "ordain and establish" federal courts, U.S. Const., Art. III, § 1. ''See Southland Corp. v. Keating'', 465 U.S. 1, 28, n. 16, 79 L. Ed. 2d 1, 104 S. Ct. 852 (1984) (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting) (collecting cases). Only in 1967 did the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] hold that the Act "is based upon and confined to the incontestable federal foundations of 'control over interstate commerce and over admiralty.'"  ''Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.'', 388 U.S. 395, 405, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1270, 87 S. Ct. 1801 (1967) (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 96, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1924)).

The Federal Arbitration Act was thought to represent an exercise of [[U.S. Congress|Congress]]' Article III power to "ordain and establish" federal courts, U.S. Const., Art. III, § 1. ''See Southland Corp. v. Keating'', 465 U.S. 1, 28, n. 16, 79 L. Ed. 2d 1, 104 S. Ct. 852 (1984) (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting) (collecting cases). Only in 1967 did the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] hold that the Act "is based upon and confined to the incontestable federal foundations of 'control over interstate commerce and over admiralty.'"  ''Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.'', 388 U.S. 395, 405, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1270, 87 S. Ct. 1801 (1967) (quoting H. R. Rep. No. 96, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1924)).

[[category:law]]

[[Category:Law]]

[[category:jurisdiction]]

[[Category:Jurisdiction]]