GOV 357M Constitutional Law Final exam

Gibbons v. Ogden

A New York state law gave a 20-year monopoly to Livingston and Fulton. Ogden tried to forestall the monopoly but didn't work. Gibbons and Ogden formed a partnership that failed when Gibbons took Ogden's boat, Ogden pressed charges and got an injunction and rejected Gibbons case asserting that Congress controlled interstate commerce Constitutional Question What does commerce comprehend? To what extent may congress exercise its regulatory power within the separate states? (among the states) Is congressional power to regulate interstate commerce exclusive or does a state have concurrent power in this field Once we determine what the commerce clause is, should it be construed broadly or strictly What restraints can be placed on congress's power over commerce Outcome Chief Justice Marshall Concluded that regulation of steamboat operators and others for the purpose of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to Congress under the commerce clause. As navigation fell under interstate commerce, the New York law was invalid; states could not interfere. Defines commerce as the intercourse between nations and parts of nations and is regulated by prescribing rules for that intercourse. You can't think of commerce between nations without considering navigation. Commerce goes way beyond just monetary exchanges Always seek to push out to the limits of constitutional possibility (interpret broadly) Marshall says exclusive power has been exercised (Congress passed the law) The issue has not been resolved, only recognized. The completely internal commerce of a state is considered to be reserved for the state itself. The restraints are the self-restraint that resides within the representative party itself to wane in on the powers of the national gov (625) But because the lines are so hazy, Congress must exercise its power to regulate within the territorial jurisdiction of the several states. He measures the reach of the clause by the empirical test of whether or not it touches upon objects that affect interstate commerce Justice Johnson: Concurring Adopts an extreme nationalist position The power must be exclusive it must reside in one potent power

Alden v. Maine

A group of workers sued the state of Maine (in a Maine district court) for being in violation of a Federal law. This was after the workers tried the same action in a Federal court. The state of Maine argued that it had sovereign immunity from suits by virtue of the 11th amendment, where they originate from a state or federal court. The group of worker disagreed and took their case to the Supreme Court. Deals with the 11th amendment 11th amendment protects states from being sued by a citizen from another state or other foreign country/place Constitutional Question Are private citizens able to sue states for violating federal law or would that action violate the 11th amendment and state sovereign immunity? Outcome Yes, the 11th amendment protects the state from suing by private citizens. The majority's reasoning sprung from the idea of "sovereign dignity" Should be explicitly based on the text of constitution but Justice Kennedy says otherwise Reflects Justice Chase's opinion in Calder v. Bull saying that those ideas need to be interpreted from the text, "constitution is a document that needs to be interpreted by more than just the text" Justice Souter: the idea of sovereign dignity is one that was given to us by no less than William Blackstone (who wrote the great commentaries that all the framers relied on?) he said: "the law ascribes to the King the attribute of sovereignty or preeminence...no suit or action can be brought against the King even in civil matters because no court can preside over him" Souter said it would be hard to imagine anything more dangerous to the Republican perception that the government is not above them but of them. The danger to democracy. Dignity is what individuals have not states.

Action

A requirement for claims that arise under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights legislation, for which a private citizen seeks relief in the form of damages or redress based on an improper intrusion by the government into his or her private life.

Necessary and Proper Clause (mcculloch)

A section of the United States Constitution that enables Congress to make the laws required for the exercise of its other powers established by the Constitution.

Southern Pacific Company v. State of Arizona

Arizona placed laws regulating train cars over 14 passenger cars or 70 freight trains and sought to recover penalties from Southern Pacific Co. lower courts said the law violated the commerce clause but the state court said it was constitutional as it sought to protect the citizens of Arizona. Even though it had ad adverse effect on interstate commerce, its foundation insulated it from challenges under the commerce clause. If each state had their own law, then compliance of those laws would raise the cost of operating those trains, which puts a burden on the company and interstate commerce Constitutional Question Did the Arizona law violate the commerce clause? Outcome The court struck down the law and said that it affected interstate commerce too much as trains from other states would come through and be subject to the same laws. The cost of new cars that the law would create would be too much. It also said that it did not sufficiently protect the citizens as it added more trains on the tracks and could cause more accidents.

Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission

Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president. In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support. Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances. The United States District Court denied the injunction. Section 203 on its face was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination. The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause," but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim. Argument for this kind of regulation is that the first amendment should not be a vehicle for turning a democracy into a plutocracy The marketplace of ideas is protected when one side is prevented from being repeated so many times that it is overwhelming to free thought Constitutional Question Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional? Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not subject to regulation as "campaign speech"? If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA? Should a feature-length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA? Outcome The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.) the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources. The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions. In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Stevens argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.

Prohibit vs Regulate (granholm)

Commerce clause gives power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states Dormant Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implicit in the commerce clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce

Compel/Commandeer/Coerce vs Encourage/Incentivise (NFIB) (new york)

Compelling and coercing is basically giving the other party no other option than to follow your directions and is not allowed in Congress. Encouraging is offering incentives and rewards for the other party to want to follow your lead and directions, and is allowed. Coercing tends to use penalties instead of incentives.

Concurrent Authority (cooley v board of wardens)

Concurrent powers are powers a federal system of government shared by both the federal government and each constituent political unit. These powers may be exercised simultaneously within the same territory, in relation to the same body of citizens, and regarding the same subject-matter.

Chief Justice Taney's opinion in Prigg v. Pennsylvania

Concurring McCullough v Maryland: It is an exclusive power of the fed gov under the fugitive slave laws. Therefore, states can't be sanctuary states. States are NOT prohibited, in fact, encouraged as a duty to protect and support the owner when he is endeavoring to obtain possession of his property found within their respective territories by passing a law relating to slave catching

Dormant power theory

Congress has exclusive power in this area, the grant in the commerce clause to Congress even though unrecognized, keeps the states from crossing congress. Precludes the state even if Congress wishes it to stay dormant. Will not enable the state to enter an activity that infringes on interstate commerce

United States v. E.C. Knight Co.

Congress sued the American Sugar Refining Company for having a monopoly of manufacturing in Philadelphia under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. The act made it illegal to monopolize or restrain interstate commerce. The SC ruled the act was constitutional but narrowly defined its power. E.C. Knight wins The Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890 as a response to the public concern in the growth of giant combinations controlling transportation, industry, and commerce. The Act aimed to stop the concentration of wealth and economic power in the hands of the few. It outlawed "every contract, combination...or conspiracy, in restraint of trade" or interstate commerce, and it declared every attempt to monopolize any part of trade or commerce to be illegal. The E.C. Knight Company was such a combination controlling over 98 percent of the sugar-refining business in the United States. Constitutional Question Did Congress exceed its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it enacted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? Outcome Chief Justice Fuller: The Sherman Anti-Trust Act did not apply to manufacture because the manufacturing of refined sugar was confined within a single state The Act was constitutional but it did not apply to manufacture. Manufacturing was not commerce, declared Fuller for the majority; the law did not reach the admitted monopolization of manufacturing Although American Sugar had monopolized manufacturing, the Court found no violation of the Sherman Act because the acquisition of the Philadelphia refineries involved intrastate commerce. The trust did not lead to control of interstate commerce and so "affects it only incidentally and indirectly." They draw a distinction between the national govs commerce power and the state's police power If it's a local problem, then it's under the state's jurisdiction MARSHALL WOULD SAY SIMPLY DESCRIBING SOMETHING AS LOCAL DOES NOT MAKE IT IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL REGULATION Commerce succeeds to manufacture, and is not a part of it. The fact that an article of interstate commerce, and the intent of the manufacturer does not determine the time when the article or product passes from the control of the state and belongs to commerce. Must have a direct impact on interstate commerce but here is described by the court by having an indirect impact on interstate commerce Justice Harlan: dissenting Anything that obstructs the free course of interstate intercourse and trade, such as the fixed prices of a product by a monopoly, may be reached by Congress.

Arizona v. United States

Controversial S.B. 1070 law. Because of the law's wide reach and effects, and because it dealt with an issue national in character (immigration) it was charged that the Arizona state legislation was an overreach of Federal power. Made it illegal by state law to be in Arizona, to work without authorization in the US, and state and local officers can stop and ask for proof of residency Did this over already existing federal laws, might have thought they were too loose, and not being enforced rigorously enough by the federal government (Justice Scalia) Constitutional issue is can a state create laws that the federal laws already address, the problem of concurrent authority over legislation, power is already given to the federal government, which should preempt any additional state legislation or other lesser jurisdiction and authority Constitutional Question: Did SB 1070 legislation usurp the powers of the Federal government? Outcome: In the most controversial parts of the law, the court found that the state law was often preempted by already existing Federal legislation, and because of this, they struck down those parts of SB 1070. Justice Kennedy (having defended sovereign integrity, the dignity of states, in the previous case) says if there is anything that a sovereign entity has authority over, it's its own borders (what you would think as a defender of "state dignity") Defends federal government, says At some future time that issue will be addressed (show me your papers provision-the police can stop and ask for proof of residency) Roberts says in oral argument (not written) that even though the issue has come up that this could involve racial profiling, were not going to decide this case on that basis Scalia dissents, federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem and have shown they are unwilling to do so

Justice McLean's opinion in Prigg v. Pennsylvania

Dissenting Every person is assumed free regardless of color in non-slaveholding states so Pennsylvania's exclusion of the woman is a penalty Pennsylvania is doing exactly what it should be doing so as to protect an erroneous mistake of slaveholders from other states

Interstate Commerce

Economic activity that goes across state lines and therefore affects more than just one state's economy Under Congress's reach of power

Wickard v. Filburn

Filburn was a farmer in Ohio who went over his allotted amount of wheat he was allowed to produce under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and so he was penalized. He argued that he grew it and used it for personal use and therefore did not violate the law since it had no effect on interstate commerce. His wheat was therefore not subject to federal regulation since he never put it on the market. The idea behind the law is supply and demand, the government is trying to control the supply in the marketplace so as to have a set price. If there is an overproduction the price would go down. The fine is to prevent farmers from overproducing. If you don't punish one farmer you cant punish any of them. Has to be an example. At that time, what amounted to 20% of national production. If you insert that number into a policy question, you can see better how the trivial amount when aggregated in this way, would affect the price of wheat in a way the federal government could see as a threat Constitutional Question Did the Act violate the constitution? Outcome The court unanimously upheld the law. Congress has the power to regulate prices in the industry, and the law was made in order to accomplish that. Even though he was one individual, it could become a major effect on interstate commerce. This opinion went against other previous decisions that were based on locality and whether it was an indirect or a direct effect on commerce.

Palko v. Connecticut

Frank Palko had been charged with first-degree murder. He was convicted instead of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The state of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial; this time the court found Palko guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. Constitutional Question Does Palko's second conviction violate the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment because this protection applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause? Outcome The Supreme Court upheld Palko's second conviction. Cardozo formulated principles that were to direct the Court's actions for the next three decades. He noted that some Bill of Rights guarantees--such as freedom of thought and speech-- is fundamental and that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause absorbed these fundamental rights and applied them to the states. Protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right.

McCulloch v. Maryland

In 1816 the U.S. chartered the first Bank of the United States. In 1818 Maryland imposed taxes on the bank but McCulloch, the cashier at the bank, refused to pay the taxes. The appeals court found that the bank was unconstitutional as the constitution does not grant federal authority to charter a bank Constitutional question: Does Congress have the authority to charter a national bank, and does the Maryland law interfere with congressional authority Outcome: Found that Congress did have the authority to charter the bank, and Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government Justice Marshall pointed to the Necessary and Proper clause to say that Congress has powers not explicitly written in the constitution. He said necessary means appropriate and legitimate. He also said that though states have the power to tax, national law is supreme and cannot be controlled by the states States do pertain certain powers, congress's powers are supreme

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton

In 1992, Arkansas added the Term Limit amendment to their state constitution. It added term limits to state elected officials and said that any member of the U.S. house of representatives who served three terms would not be eligible for reelection as an Arkansas U.S. representative. The same is said for Senate members except the limit is two terms. Constitutional Question Can states alter the qualifications for U.S. Congress that are specifically stated in the constitution? What democratic principle is affirmed in this case? Individual rights How does the model of Congress that is reflected in Marshall's theory of the Union in McCullough v Maryland come out in this case? "the true source of power is rooted in the people as a whole who succeeded from the British empire and organized themselves in the colonies, but these colonies were subordinate to the people" What do the positions tell us about the meaning of the tenth amendment? The 10th amendment (powers delegation) provides no basis for concluding that states possess reserved (original) power to add to the fixed qualifications Outcome Opinion: Justice Stevens The courts said no, the constitution prohibits states from adopting congressional qualifications in addition to those already in the constitution Framers are fearful of diverse interests undermining national legislature (McCulloch v Maryland). Powell: the people should choose whom they please to govern them and the right to choose representatives belongs to the people, not the states. The egalitarian ideal is compromised by adding qualifications from the states as opposed to those by Congress. Dissent: Justice Thomas The constitution is silent about the power of each state to prescribe eligibility requirements and therefore the 10th amendment gives that power to the states. Under the 10th amendment, states get any power under default of any powers not specifically enumerated by the federal government. Commitment to state sovereignty.

U.S. v. Morrison

In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia Tech, raped her. She then filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished. A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Christy then dropped out of the university and sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison and Crawford moved to dismiss Brzonkala's suit on the ground that section 13981's civil remedy was unconstitutional. In dismissing the complaint, the District Court found that Congress lacked authority to enact section 13981 under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress had explicitly identified as the sources of federal authority for it Constitutional Question Does Congress have the authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 under either the Commerce Clause or Fourteenth Amendment? All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. ... The 14th amendment is a very important amendment that defines what it means to be a US citizen and protects certain rights of the people. Outcome The court found that despite the extensive research, violent criminal acts don't affect interstate commerce. Gender-related crimes are not an interstate commerce. One difference form Lopez is the data Reaffirmation of Lopez that concludes similarly despite the fact that Congress has done its homework Going to be much more demanding of a clear connection between the activity being regulated and its economic relation/effect that Congress is claiming More directly economic with regard to the problem itself, not just in terms of the resulting economic implications the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact a statute under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment since the statute did not regulate an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce nor did it redress the harm caused by the state. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that [i]f the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice could fail to provide [Brzonkala] a remedy for the conduct of...Morrison. But under our federal system, that remedy must be provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and not by the United States." Dissenting, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that the majority opinion "illustrates the difficulty of finding a workable judicial Commerce Clause touchstone." Justice David H. Souter, dissenting, noted that VAWA contained a "mountain of data assembled by Congress...showing the effects of violence against women on interstate commerce."

Gonzales v. Raich

In 1996 California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act which banned possession of marijuana The DEA seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home and a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in the federal district court The medical marijuana users argued the Controlled Substances Act - which Congress passed using its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce - exceeded Congress' commerce clause power. The district court ruled against the group. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the CSA unconstitutional as it applied to intrastate (within a state) medical marijuana use. Relying on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that narrowed Congress' commerce clause power - U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and the U.S. v. Morrison (2000) - the Ninth Circuit ruled using medical marijuana did not "substantially affect" interstate commerce and therefore could not be regulated by Congress Similar to the Wickard case but how and what are the differences? Wickard was not involved in the market when he used his own produce Constitutional Question Does the Controlled Substances Act exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use? Does Congresses interstate commerce power reach the marijuana use in California even though the people using it are not selling or anything, let alone across state lines, so Congress is overreaching their power by involving themselves in state markets? Outcome the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress the authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to strike down a particular application of a valid statutory scheme. Differentiated itself from Morrison and Lopez by making a distinction between economic and noneconomic activity Quote saying using states as laboratories

NFIB v. Sebelius

In 2010 Congress passed the ACA. It contained an expansion for Medicaid that if states did not agree to they would lose federal funding, and required individuals to have health insurance or have to pay tax penalties. Many states and the NFIB and other companies brought forward claims that this was unconstitutional. They argued that individual mandate exceeded Congress's reach under the commerce clause, the Medicaid expansions were unconstitutionally coercive, and the employer mandate interfered with state sovereignty. ACA was originally a very Republican idea, Romney care, when it was adopted by Obama administration it was seen as more moderate The argument for it is that if everyone had insurance it would ultimately reduce the cost of overall health care Prevents premiums from skyrocketing for the people who need it, elderly, disabled, sick, etc. Constitutional Question Is the suit brought by the respondents barred by the anti-injunction act? Does Congress have power under the commerce clause or the taxing and spending clause to require most Americans to purchase health insurance? Did Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate principles of federalism when it pressured states into accepting conditions that Congress could not impose directly by threatening to take away funding under Medicaid which is the largest federal grant program? Outcome Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts anti-injunction act did not bar the suit. The majority said that the individual mandate program was for tax purposes of the taxing and spending clause and is within the rights of Congress. The payment is not so severe that it is considered coercive and is collected by the IRS by normal means. The majority said the individual mandate was not within Congressional power under the commerce clause as it was written to establish legislation on commerce that already existed and not force individuals to participate in commerce. The majority said that the Medicaid expansion provision was unconstitutional in the way it was written to coerce states by threatening to take away funding. The constitution isn't understood to mean the states have to govern according to Congress's instructions. The court strikes down anything that commandeers a state's legislative apparatus for federal purposes (Printz. V NY) The rest, without the Medicaid expansion provision which threatened to completely take away funding, was constitutional under the taxing and spending clause. Dissent: Ginsburg Dissenting opinion said that by calling it a penalty, it is coercion, and making the conclusion based on it being for tax purposes is rewriting the Act. Medicaid and Medicaid expanded by the ACA are one program that enables the poor to receive basic health care It's another stage in a process that manifests our abiding commitment to cooperative federalism

United States v. Lopez

Lopez, a high school senior, carried a concealed handgun into school. He was charged with a firearm on school property. The next day, the state charges were dropped as federal charges were brought forward saying he violated the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 forbidding any individual from knowingly carrying a firearm in a place he or she knows is a school zone. He was found guilty. Objected the national government's policy, said that it was an abuse of the commerce clause to insert itself in regulating here at the local level. If anyone has a say it should be the state of Texas. Constitutional Question Is the Act unconstitutional on the basis that it exceeds Congress's power to legislate under the commerce clause? Outcome Yes, it is a violation because possession of a gun on school property is not an economic activity that if repeated elsewhere would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. It is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with commerce or any kind of economic activity. Distinguishes case from Filburn saying guns don't have anything to do with interstate commerce rejects government's argument that there might be a substantial argument for interstate commerce of cost of having a gun go off on campus, cost of having a gun go off on campus

Granholm v. Heald

Michigan and New York allowed direct wine sales to doors but did not allow out of state deliveries. In separate cases, groups claimed this violated the dormant commerce clause which prohibited states from passing laws that affected interstate commerce, especially ones that favor in-state commerce over out of state. The states argued that it was valid under the 21st amendment which gave states over alcohol importation regulation. Violated dormant commerce clause What Michigan and NY were doing is exactly what commerce clause was trying to protect State interest in protecting minors couldn't be proved with the evidence given about minors and their drinking habits, it's a stretch What makes it interesting has to do with the 21st amendment Reversed prohibition The 18th amendment is the prohibition amendment, 21st reverses it Also has a section, section 2, the transportation of liquors in violation of the laws, is hereby prohibited This language contradicts what the court said about the commerce clause. Commerce clause says specifically that booze is under the discretion of the states but the dormant commerce clause essentially says they cannot. Contradictory Amendment seems to violate the existing constitution Can there be an unconstitutional constitutional amendment Does an amendment take precedence over the existing constitution Constitutional Question Does a state law that allows in-state commerce to occur, but not out-of-state violate the dormant commerce clause in light of the 21st amendment? Outcome The majority said yes it did violate the dormant commerce clause and did so without authorization of the 21st amendment.

Cooley v. Board of Wardens

Pennsylvania law required all ships going in and out of their ports to have a local pilot, and ships that failed to do so were subject to a fine. Cooley refused to hire a local pilot and pay the fine. He argued the law violated the commerce clause which gives power to Congress over interstate commerce but bars it from delegating that power to the states. if the dormant power theory is correct, then the Pennsylvania law is unconstitutional but also Congress could not violate the exclusivity in the commerce clause Constitutional Question Does the Pennsylvania law violate the commerce clause? Can P law require ships to hire local navigators? Can they do this, even though Congress has exclusive power over regulation of navigation? To say they have exclusive power is embracing dormant power theory. In the end, they are giving the state the right to regulate. Outcome The majority found that this did not violate the constitution as localized elements of commerce could be delegated to the states.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania passed laws in 1788 and 1826 making it illegal to remove black people from the state for the purpose of enslaving them. In 1832 a black woman named Margaret Morgan moved from Maryland to Pennsylvania, and though her owner never fully emancipated her, she was granted virtual freedom. When he died, his heirs wanted her returned and sent Prigg to capture her. After he returned her to Maryland, he was arrested on the basis of the 1826 law. In court, he argued that the laws violated the constitutional guarantee of extradition and the federal government's Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 (McCullough elevated the national gov to the constitutional order which allows them to decide this case.) Constitutional Question: Do Pennsylvania's laws violate Article IV section 2 of the constitution? And do they violate the Fugitive Slave law of 1793 as applied by the supremacy clause? Outcome: Justice Story The court found that the Pennsylvania laws violated both. Supremacy clause means national laws supersede state laws. Story was an outspoken abolitionist but writes this opinion for the court which might not be a justification for slavery but a justification of apprehension of a slave. Why? By putting the issue of slavery under the powers of the national government away from the states, the national gov eventually will have the power to end slavery. No court of justice can construe any clause of the constitution to defeat its obvious ends In the absence of any positive delegation of power to the state legislatures, power belongs to the national gov. It would be strange to suppose that the national government to rely the fulfillment of its own proper duties upon state legislation Chief Justice Taney: Concurring McCullough v Maryland: It is an exclusive power of the fed gov under the fugitive slave laws. Therefore, states can't be sanctuary states. States are NOT prohibited, in fact, encouraged as a duty to protect and support the owner when he is endeavoring to obtain possession of his property found within their respective territories by passing a law relating to slave catching Justice McLean: Dissenting Every person is assumed free regardless of color in non-slaveholding states so Pennsylvania's exclusion of the woman is a penalty Pennsylvania is doing exactly what it should be doing so as to protect an erroneous mistake of slaveholders from other states

Rochin v. California

Rochin swallowed drug capsules to dispose of evidence. The police pummeled him and jumped on his stomach in a vain effort to make him throw up. They took him to a hospital where a doctor was instructed by the police officers to administer an emetic by forcibly passing a tube into Rochin's stomach. He vomited the capsules and was convicted on the basis of the evidence produced from his vomit. Constitutional Question Did the police procedure forcing Rochin to vomit violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment? Outcome The Court reversed the conviction. The police violated Rochin's right to due process of law. Due process was an admittedly vague concept, but it prohibited "conduct that shocks the conscience." This nebulous approach was mocked in a concurring opinion by Justice Black.

Shelby County v. Holder

Shelby County, Alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that Section 5 and Section 4(b) of the voting rights act is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The district court upheld the constitutionality of the Sections and granted summary judgment for the Attorney General. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that Congress did not exceed its powers by reauthorizing Section 5 and that Section 4(b) is still relevant to the issue of voting discrimination. Constitutional Question Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress' authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore violate the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution? Outcome The Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposes current burdens that are no longer responsive to the current conditions in the voting districts in question. Although the constraints this section places on specific states made sense in the 1960s and 1970s, they do not any longer and now represent an unconstitutional violation of the power to regulate elections that the Constitution reserves for the states. The Court also held that the formula for determining whether changes to a state's voting procedure should be federally reviewed is now outdated and does not reflect the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years in narrowing the voting turnout gap in the states in question. Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional in addition to Section 4. He wrote that the blatant discrimination against certain voters that Section 5 was intended to prohibit is no longer evident. Without such extraordinary circumstances, Congress cannot constitutionally justify placing the burden of Section 5 on the states in question. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent in which she argued that Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments encompasses legislative action such as the Voting Rights Act. The legislative history and text of the Amendments as well as previous judicial precedent support Congress' authority to enact legislation that specifically targets potential state abuses. However, Congress does not have unlimited authority but must show that the means are taken rationally advance a legitimate objective, as is the case with the Voting Rights Act. The evidence Congress gathered to determine whether to renew the Voting Rights Act sufficiently proved that there was still a current need to justify the burdens placed on the states in question. She also argued that, by holding Section 4 unconstitutional, the majority's opinion makes it impossible to effectively enforce Section 5. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent.

Manufacture (E.C. Knight)

Sherman Act could not be applied to manufacture of sugar because "commerce succeeds to manufacture, and is not a part of it." Essentially, the Court cabined commerce as a phase of business distinct from other aspects of production.

10th Amendment (new york, printz, u.s. Term limits)

Tenth Amendment reserves all rights not granted to the federal government to the individual states. Article Four of the Constitution guarantees the right of self-government for each state.

Lopez Test

Test to see if the question presented to Congress does indeed affect interstate commerce They Lopez test says Congress can regulate interstate commerce only in certain instances: (1)when it regulates the channels of interstate commerce; (2)when it regulates the instrumentalities of interstate commerce; (3) when the regulation has a substantial relation to interstate commerce, found through (a) explicit congressional findings to that effect; (b) the presence of a jurisdictional element in the law; (c) or where the law specifically regulates a commercial activity. Lopez indicates that the Court may again begin to second guess the motives of Congress and question more then the mere appropriateness of the means chosen. Today, the Lopez test above all identifies whether Congress is regulating commerce, and in applying the test the Court examines whether Congress pursues legitimate ends and utilizes appropriate means.

Individual Mandate

The ACA regulation that requires all individuals have health insurance or have tax penalties

15th Amendment (shelby county)

The Fifteenth Amendment protects citizens from having their right to vote abridged or denied due to "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Printz v. U.S.

The Brady Bill required local chief law enforcement officers to do background checks on people trying to get handguns until the Attorney General put rules in place. Printz and Mack both separately challenged this for the CLEO's in Montana and Arizona. Both courts found the background checks to be unconstitutional but because it was only one part of the law, voluntary background checks were still allowed. The supreme court consolidated the two cases. Constitutional Question Can Congress temporarily allow CLEO's to regulate handgun purchases as stipulated in the Brady Bill on the basis of the Necessary and Proper Clause of article 1? Outcome The court said no, based on the old rule of state legislatures not being subject to federal direction, it cannot compel state CLEO's to fulfill its federal tasks for it. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court (5-4) stating that it did violate the Constitution. Referencing the Federalist papers, the 10th amendment and the change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, the court state that there was dual sovereignty between the states and federal government, and that "the Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States". By allowing state law enforcement officers to 'take care' of federal law, the act unconstitutionally took power away from the President(515). Imagine if the President refused to enforce a law that he or she thought to be unconstitutional, and Congress commanded states to enforce the same law. The opinion noted a special distinction with Congress compelling state courts to follow certain rules, if those prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power (514). The Court also stated that it was unlike federal grants (in which states get money if they follow federal requirements) since the states (in federal grants) could refuse to follow the law (grant requirements) without breaking the law (514). Justice Thomas concurred, solely on the basis of the 10th amendment. His argument seems to reject the Federal government's ability to regulate handguns under the commerce clause Justice O'Connor concurred, stating state officers could voluntarily enforce the act.

commerce clause

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian

5th Amendment

The Fifth Amendment imposes restrictions on the government's prosecution of persons accused of crimes. It prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy and mandates due process of law.

14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment protects every person's right to due process of law.

Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity Doc (alden v maine)

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Hammer v. Dagenhart

The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor. Reuben Dagenhart's father -- Roland -- had sued on behalf of his freedom to allow his fourteen-year-old son to work in a textile mill. Constitutional Question Does the congressional act violate the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment? Outcome The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was outside the Commerce Power and the regulation of production was a power reserved to the states via the Tenth Amendment Day spoke for the Court majority and found two grounds to invalidate the law. Production was not commerce, and thus outside the power of Congress to regulate. And the regulation of production was reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states. Day wrote that "the powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved" to the states and to the people. In his wording, Day revised the Constitution slightly and changed the intent of the framers: The Tenth Amendment does not say "expressly." The framers purposely left the word expressly out of the amendment because they believed they could not possibly specify every power that might be needed in the future to run the government.

Equal Sovereignty

The Supreme Court of the United States based its landmark decision in Shelby County v. Holder on the proposition that the Constitution contains "a fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States." ... there is no doctrine of equal sovereignty.

Federalism

The basic principle of American federalism is based in the Tenth Amendment (ratified in 1791) to the Constitution which states: "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." Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments.

New York v. United States

The low-level radiation waste management act amendments of 1985 required states to dispose of such waste within state borders. New York State and Allegany and Cortland were frustrated because residents would not accept any of the proposed waste sites and a lack of cooperation from neighboring states. New York filed complaints against the U.S. questioning whether it was within federal rights to regulate state waste management Constitutional Question Does the waste management act violate the tenth amendment and the guarantee clause of article 4? Outcome Justice O'Connor Congress found under the commerce clause that it did have the authority to offer financial rewards and access to waste sites as incentives for state waste management, however, it found the "take title" provision of the law to violate the 10th amendment by being inconsistent with the constitutions division of state and federal governments The fed gov can encourage a policy but not require a state to enforce a particular federal policy The ANTI COMMANDEERING PRINCIPLE: You can't commandeer the legislative processes of the states to fulfill a federal policy If accountability is being obscured, the impact is to be fell on individual rights because we have the right to hold our representatives accountable

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations affected commerce. The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans. The government sought to enjoin the motel from discriminating on the basis of race under Title II. Constitutional Question Did Congress exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving places of public accommodation of the right to choose their own customers? Outcome The Commerce Clause extends the anti-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hotels that host travelers from outside the state. the Court held the government could enjoin the motel from discriminating on the basis of race under the Commerce Clause. Since the motel was positioned near Interstates 75 and 85 and received most of its business from outside Georgia, this showed that it had an impact on interstate commerce, which is all that is needed to justify Congress in exercising the Commerce Clause power.

Champion v. Ames

W.F. Champion sued out a writ of habeas corpus when he was arrested for shipping a lottery ticket under an 1895 act prohibiting that because of morality. The lawsuit was grounded that the act under which he was to be tried was unconstitutional and void. Constitutional Question Did the transport of lottery tickets by independent carriers constitute "commerce" that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause? Outcome Justice Harlan: Using the commerce clause (as in the Mann act cases) to regulate problems of morality Let the end be legit and all means to get that end be constitutional The power to regulate commerce is complete in itself and can be exercised with the utmost extent and acknowledge no limitations other than those in the Constitution Chief Justice Fuller: Dissenting The power to suppress lotteries belongs to the states and not congress Regulation of morality is something in the reserved power of the states (police powers)

The ANTI COMMANDEERING PRINCIPLE

You can't commandeer the legislative processes of the states to fulfill a federal policy If accountability is being obscured, the impact is to be fell on individual rights because we have the right to hold our representatives accountable

Selective Incorporation & Total Incorporation

a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. ... At its heart, selective incorporation is about the ability of the federal government to limit the states' law making powers. a doctrine in constitutional law: the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause embraces all the guarantees in the Bill of Rights and applies them to cases under state law. Note: The total incorporation doctrine has never been adopted by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

enacted as a response to the nearly century-long history of voting discrimination. Section 5 prohibits eligible districts from enacting changes to their election laws and procedures without gaining official authorization. Section 4(b) defines the eligible districts as ones that had a voting test in place as of November 1, 1964, and less than 50% turnout for the 1964 presidential election. Such districts must prove to the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of a Washington, D.C. district court that the change "neither has the purpose nor will have the effect" of negatively impacting an individual's right to vote based on race or minority status. Section 5 was originally enacted for five years but has been continually renewed since that time.

Congressional Delegation of Power (Cooley)

in law, the transfer of authority by one person or group to another person or group. For example, the U.S. Congress may create government agencies to which it delegates authority to promulgate and enforce regulations pursuant to law.

Concurrent power theory

no field of regulation exclusively reserved to Congress by the Congress clause. Just because Congress has powers doesn't mean states don't have. The only limitation on state power is the supremacy clause, also a limitation on taxing power. Found in Gibbons

Pre-Clearance Requirement

the part requiring certain states with a history of racial discrimination in voting to obtain federal permission in advance to change their voting procedures

Double Jeopardy

the prosecution of a person twice for the same offense.

Inaction

the wrongful act of an individual is not state action "if not sanctioned in some way by the state, or not done under state authority." This latter comment is the embryonic statement of the theory that state inaction to remedy private wrongs constitutes state action under the fourteenth amendment.

Coverage Formula

used to determine which states and political subdivisions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,