Con Law Test 2

Front 1

NLRB v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp

Back 1

-Labor Relations Act or the Wagner-Act
-NLRB tried to make Jones hire people after they fired people
-court upheld wagner act saying that this was part of commerce
-determined that effect activities that affect commerce

Front 2

Wagner Act

Back 2

-Also called labor Relations Act
-was put in place after the national industrial act was shot down in Schecter Poultery
-was the law in question in Jones Laughlin steel
-would be later shot down in Schecter Poultry Corporation v United States

Front 3

United States v Darby Lumber Co

Back 3

-Fair Labor Standards not paying enough (minimum wage)
-this has been shot down before in cases like Hammer v Dagenhart
-called upon gibbons v ogden and that they could regulate the stream of commerce

Front 4

Wickard V Filburn

Back 4

-Involved the Agricultural Adjustment Act
-court 9-0ed it in favor of Wickard (not the farmer guy)

Front 5

United States v Morrison

Back 5

-woman was raped and shit
-the whole "cost of crime" shit wont run here says court
-5-4 court held that the law was unconstitutional
-section 5 of 14th amend was brought up

Front 6

dormant commerce clause

Back 6

circle shit! congress has certain power over certain areas and then the state and congress work together in the other area

Front 7

southern R Co v United States

Back 7

-was used when talking about the commerce powers congress has in Morrison

Front 8

3 main powers that congress has according

Back 8

-regulate activities that affect commerce
-regulate channels used
-regulate instruments/people even if its interstate related

Front 9

Cooley v Bd of wardens of the Port of Philadelphia

Back 9

-involved philly trying to get people to hire their pilots
-this would have been a case of implied powers and whatnot but court decided that the state had authority

Front 10

Implied Power

Back 10

-Constitution gives it in express terms
-Constitution gives to congress, prohibits states
-constitution grants authority to congress that makes no sense for states

Front 11

So Pac Co v Arizona

Back 11

-the whole train dealo
-arizona got owned
-this was controlling the channels of commerce
-this is constricting flow of commerce

Front 12

Pennsylvania v Nelson

Back 12

-communist guy
-Did Pennsalvania law interfer with the Smith act
-Warren honors the 18th amendment and the Volstead act, which gives states power
-these are the reasons nelson won
-the states couldnt supplement it it was punishment enough; the issue was big enough that national charge took precedent; there is a possiblity of fed/state enforcement interference

Front 13

Gonzales v Oregon

Back 13

-had to do with "death with dignity"
-violated controlled substances act?
-Gonzales v Raich was brought up
-the court ruled in favor of the suicide whatnot
-thought it wasnt proper to apply the Chevron thing to this

Front 14

Chevron deference

Back 14

First, always, is the question whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court as well as the agency must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress."
"If the Court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction of the statute . . . Rather,
(2) [I]f the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific question, the issue for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."

Front 15

Nixon v United States

Back 15

-nixon was a federal district judge, convicted of making false statements to a grand jury
-Nixon says that the Senate Rule 11 went against "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"
-legal provision (article 1 section 3 paragraph 6)

Front 16

New York v United States

Back 16

-radioactive waste
-the problem was the third part of the agreement, that the states gained title to the waste
-10th amendment was used proving congress has a limit provided that the constitution has not diverted power to the feds (Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority)
-south dakota v dole also sighted (the drinking)
-Oconner says that the roll of the feds have changed immensely

Front 17

Printz v United States/Mack v United States

Back 17

-Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
-the question is does the state have the right to use state funds for fed laws?
-even though there was no actual written stuff against it they said "in historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court"
-called upon New York V. United States "the framers explicity chose a constitution that confers upon congress the power to regulate individuals not states"

Front 18

Schechter poultry v United States

Back 18

-national industry recovery act under new deal was being review
-some of the parts of the act where unconstitutional as it was a bad delegation of power to the executive branch
-Poultry was also only very loosely related to interstate trade

Front 19

INS v Chadha

Back 19

-the immigration act whole deal
-the guy admitted that he should be deported but liked having suspension which was vetoed
-the state attorney could veto it and everything
-this veto and delegation of power was unconstitutional
-the presentment clause was in question since it was not being presented to the president

Front 20

presentment clause

Back 20

-Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3
-bills must be presented to the president before they become law

Front 21

Dames & Moore v Regan

Back 21

-Regan ordered a freeze on Irannian money in US for hostage situation
-he then granted Iran free of court cases and shit
-he used the IEEPA to do this
-he had the power to do this even though it wasnt totally textual past rulings let him

Front 22

United States v Curtiss Writght Corp

Back 22

-the machine gun case to Bolivia
-Roosevelt put a ban on selling machine guns to them
-Art. II was in question here
-congress deligated power to the president to do this but where they allowed
-yes they could because it was foreign affairs

Front 23

Clinton v City of New York

Back 23

-has to do with the Line Item Veto Act
-Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 2: Separation of Powers
-a president must take the bill as is he cant just cross out parts of it randomly
-being able to just write off certain provisions screwed up the framework the founders wanted
-previously this law was shot down in Raines v Byrd but Clinton got around it

Front 24

Field v Clark

Back 24

-nondeligation was involved
-president can punish other countries for "iffy trading" with taxes
-it transferred power to the president from congress which of course is a nono
-the act did say he could suspend but not cancel
-the imposition of “reciprocally unequal and unreasonable” was a condition that did not exist when the Tariff Act passed