1 / 16

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SPRING 2008 PROF. FISCHER

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SPRING 2008 PROF. FISCHER. CLASS 10 January 30, 2008 The Commerce Clause II Interpretation: 1937-present. From 1937 change in approach to commerce clause interpretation. What factors led to change in approach?. Election of 1936: Landslide for Roosevelt.

maeve
Download Presentation

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SPRING 2008 PROF. FISCHER

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SPRING 2008PROF. FISCHER CLASS 10 January 30, 2008 The Commerce Clause II Interpretation: 1937-present

  2. From 1937 change in approach to commerce clause interpretation

  3. What factors led to change in approach?

  4. Election of 1936: Landslide for Roosevelt

  5. Roosevelt’s Court-packing plan

  6. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin (1937) [C p. 131] • Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the majority opinion of the Court • 5-4 decision (the “Four Horsemen” all dissented)

  7. Change in approach from 1937 • Meaning of “commerce” • Meaning of “among the . . . States” • Whether Tenth Amendment operates as a limit on the commerce power of Congress

  8. U.S. v. Darby (1941) [C p. 134] • Justice Stone delivered opinion of the Court (unanimous)

  9. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) [C p. 136] • Justice Robert Jackson delivered opinion of a unanimous Court

  10. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Ass’n (1981) [C p. 143] • Majority opinion by Marshall (joined by Brennan, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens] • pay attention to Rehnquist’s concurring opinion

  11. CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS: COMMERCE POWER USED TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION • E.g. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) [C p. 139] and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) (CB p. 141)

  12. CRIMINAL LAWS • Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971) [C p. 143] • Majority opinion by Douglas, joined by Burger, Black, Brennan, White, Mashall, and Blackmun • Dissent by Stewart

  13. 3 THINGS CAN BE REGULATED UNDER THE COMMERCE POWER • 1. Channels of interstate commerce (e.g. roads, terms/conditions on which goods can be sold interstate) • 2. Instrumentalities of interstate commerce (e.g airlines, railroads, trucking) and persons/things in interstate commerce • 3. Activity that [substantially] affects interstate commerce (read together with N & P clause)

  14. U.S. v. Darby (1941) [C p. 134] • Justice Stone delivered opinion of the Court (unanimous) • Tenth Amendment “states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.”

  15. National League of Cities v. Usery(1976) [C p. 145] • 5-4 Majority opinion written by Justice Rehnquist (joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, and Powell) • Concurring opinion by Blackmun • Dissent by Brennan joined by White and Marshall

  16. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985) [C p.148] • 5-4 • Justice Blackmun wrote the majority opinion, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, and Stevens • Powell, Rehnquist, O’Connor, Burger dissent

More Related