Con law final

• Dual federalism operates under the assumption that the 2 levels of government are coequal sovereigns, each supreme within its own sphere
• Dual federalists view the Constitution as compact among the states and a contract between the states and the federal government
• dual federalists read the necessary and proper clause narrowly
• dual federalist believe the 10th amendment reserves certain powers to the states and thus limits the national government to those power specifically delegated to it
• cooperative federalism operates under the assumption that the national government is supreme even if its actions touch state functions. States and the federal government are "partners," but the latter largely sets policy for the nation
• cooperative federalists reject the view of the constitution as "compact"; the people, not the states, empower the national government
• cooperative federalists say the 10th amendment does not provide additional power to the states
• cooperative federalists read the necessary and proper clause expansively
• cooperative federalist believe the supremacy clauses means that the national government is supreme within its own sphere, even if its actions touch on state functions
• the 10th amendment says that "the powers not delegates to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"
• • Marshall Court (1801-1835): cooperative federalism
  • Taney Court (1835-1864): dual federalism (states rights)
  • Civil war/reconstruction courts (1865-1895): cooperative federalism
  • Laissez-faire courts (1896-1936): dual federalism
  • Post new deal courts (1937-1969): cooperative federalism
  • Burger court (1969-1986): weakening support for cooperative federalism with occasional decisions supporting dual federalism
  • Rehnquist and Roberts courts (1986-present): a milder version of dual federalism
• Commerce clause [article I, section 8]: the congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with the Indian tribes
• Stafford v. Wallace

  • Packers and Stockyards Act: attempt to regulate activities of meat packers that were unconstitutional, unfair, or encouraged monopolies
  • Stafford: representative of a stockyard; Wallace: sec of agr.
  • Stafford sued wallace arguing the act is unconst
  • Legal q: did congress exceed its commerce clause power when enforcing the P&S Act?
  • Ruling: no. Congress can regulate the stockyards because they are in the stream of commerce
• Hammer v. Dagenhart

  • Keating Owen Child Labor Act: illegalized the shipment of goods made by children of a certain age
  • Dagenhart: worked at textile mill and hired his 2 sons; he was arrested for violating the act
  • Legal q: does the act exceed the powers granted to congress by the commerce clause, the 5th, or the 10th amendment?
  • Ruling: the act violates the 10th amendment because 1) congress cant regulate production; 2) police powers are reserved to the states
• Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US

  • CRA banned discrimination of blacks in places of public accomidation that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce
  • Heart of Atl motel wouldnt sell rooms to blacks but largely hosted interstate travelers
  • legal q: is the banning of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation, as enforced by the cra, unconstitutional?
  • Ruling: no, upheld cra. The motel not selling rooms to blacks affects interstate commerce by reducing amount of black travelers
  • Sig: congress power under the comm clause expanded to include discrimination
• The substantial effect test came out of US v. Darby. The test says that anything that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if it is indirect, is something that congress can regulate
• US v. EC Knight established the direct-indirect test which said congress can only regulate those things that have a direct effect on interstate commerce
• the substantial effect test replaced the direct indirect test
• united states v. ec knight marked the beginning of the dual federalist era on the supreme court
• West Coast Hotel v. Parrish ended the lochner era
• Adkins v. Childrens hospital was overturned by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
• Champion v. Ames

  • Lottery Act of 1895: made it illegal to send or conspire to send lottery tickets across state lines
  • Charles champion was arrested under the act for traveling across the country and selling lottery tickets
  • Legal q: did the transportation of lottery tickets by independent carriers constitute commerce that congress could regulate under the commerce clause?
  • Ruling: Yes. lottery tickets were subjects of traffic and independent carriers could be regulated under the commerce clause. They are regulating transportation- stopping the shipment to protect consumers
• Dual federalist says congress can regulate the transportation of goods across state lines, but not the production of goods [even if those goods are produced so that they can be shipped and sold in interstate commerce]
• Cooperative federalist say congress can regulate both transportation and production
• McCray v. US

  background:

  • Margarine producers added artificial coloring to make the product look like butter
  • Oleomargarine act of 1886: places a tax on artificially colored margarine to curtail the practice; purpose was regulation 
• McCray v. US

  legal q and ruling

  • Legal q: was passing the act outside of congress taxing power?
  • Ruling: No. The right of cong. to tax within its delegated powers was essentially unrestrained...To question the purpose and motive of congress in exerting its del. powers wld be to usurp the functions of the legislative in order to control that branch of the gov in the performance of its lawful duties 
• Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.

  Background

  • Revenue Act of 1919 (Child Labor Tax Law): companies employing children under 14 would be assessed 10% of their annual profits
  • Drexel Furniture was found in violation of the law and was required to pay over $6000 in taxes
• Bailey v. Drexel Furniture co

  legal q and ruling

  • Legal q: Did Congress violate the Const in adopting the CLT law in attempting to regulate the employment of children, a power reserved to the states under the 10th?
  • Ruling (Taft) : yes. the law intruded on the jurisdiction of states to adopt and enforce child labor codes. It exerted a prohibitory & regulatory effect in a realm over which congress had no jurisdiction. Said upholding the law wld destroy state sovereignty & devastate all const. limitation of congress pwrs by allowing it to disguise future regulatory legs. in the cloak of taxes
• US v. Butler

  Background

  • In the AAA, congress implemented a processing tax on agricultural commodities, from which funds would be redistributed to farmers who promised to reduce their acreage. The act intended to solve the crisis in agricultural commodity prices which was causing many farmers to go under. Authority to determine which crops would go be affected was granted to the sec of Agr, who decided one of the crops should be cotton, and Butler received a tax claim as a recievers of the Hoosal Mills corp (a cotton processor)
• US v. Butler

  Legal q and ruling

  • legal q: did congress exceed its constitutional taxing and spending powers with the act?
  • Ruling (Roberts): the act was unconst. Attempted to regulate & control agr. production, which was a power reserved to the states by the 10th. Congress spending power is restricted to situations in which its being used for the general welfare of the people. In this case Cong. was using the spending pwr as an enforcement mechanism to control activity that was within the states auth.
  • Dissent: Stone joined by Brandeis and Cardozo
• Steward Machine Co v. Davis

  Background

  • case that challenged the social security tax
  • congress passed the SSA--> The Act imposed a tax on employers of eight or more to fund unemployment compensation. If a state had established an approved compensation plan, however, the taxpayer could credit up to 90% of the federal tax paid to the state unemployment fund. Steward argued that with the Act, Congress surpassed its powers outlined in the Tenth Amendment.   
• Steward Machine Company

  legal q & ruling

  • did the act arbitrarily impose taxes in violation of the 5th amendment or subvert principles of federalism
  • Ruling (Cardozo): the tax under the SSA was a const exercise of congressional power. the tax didnt coerce the states in contravention of the 10th. Differentiated between SSA and AAA by saying all of us will benefit from social security whereas only farmers will benefit from the AAA tax
  • Dissent (Mcreynolds, Van Devanter, sutherland, Butler [4 horseman]): SSA is a congressional overrreach
• Steward Machine Company v. Davis marked the beginning of a cooperative federalist interpretation of congress taxing powers
• South Dakota v. Dole

  Background

  • Congress enacted legislation ordering the Sec. of Transportation (dole) to withhold 5% of federal highway funds from states that did not adopt a 21-year-old minimum drinking age. South Dakota, a state that permitted persons 19 years of age to purchase alcohol, challenged the law.
• South Dakota v. Dole

  legal q and ruling

  • Did Congress exceed its spending powers, or violate the 21st amend, by passing legislation conditioning the award of federal highway funds on the states' adoption of a uniform min drinking age?
  • ruling (rehnquist): no. The legislation was in pursuit of "the general welfare," and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable. The Court also held that the 21st amend
  • COME BACK TO NOT DONE
• Jacobson v. Massachusetts

  • Mass. Law allowed cities to require residents to be vaccinated against smallpox. Cambridge adopted such an ordinance, w some exceptions. Jacobson refused to comply w the law and was fined 5$
  • Legal q: did the law violate jacobsons 14th amend right to liberty?
  • Ruling: the mass law is a legitimate exercise of the states police power to protect the health & safety of its citizens. Local boards of health determined when mandatory vacc. were needed, thus making the req neither unreasonable nor arbitrarily imposed
• Edwards v. California

  Background

  • At the height of the Great Depression, anyone who knowingly assisted indigent ppl in entering the state of Cali was guilty of a misdemeanor. "okie law"
  • Edwards: drove to TX and then returned to Cali with his indigent brother-in-law. Edwards was found guilty of violating the state's "Okie law;" he was given a six-month suspended jail sentence.
• Edwards v. California

  legal q and ruling

  • legal q: does the cali law violate the constitutions commerce clause?
  • ruling (Burns): Court struck down Cali law based on the dormant commerce clause→ argued that for cali to prevent us citizens from being able to travel freely from state to state violated the c.c; calis interest in the health of its citizens and the sufficiency of its welfare funds dont justify the burden on interstate commerce occasioned by the law.
• Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia

  Background

  • A PA law required all ships entering or leaving the port of PA to hire a local pilot. Ships that failed to do so were subject to a fine. Cooley was a ship owner who refused to hire a local pilot and also refused to pay the fine. He argued that the law violated the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress authority over interstate commerce and bars Congress from delegating that authority to the states. This argument was rejected by the lower courts. 
• Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia

  legal q and ruling

  • legal q: Does PA law requiring ships to hire a local pilot violate the CC on the const?
  • Ruling: no. localized elements of commerce like selection of pilots could be appropriately delegated to the states. Though navigation was commerce, the Court held that pilotage demanded diverse local rules to cope with varying local conditions. Therefore, Congress’s power was selectively exclusive.