Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/11

Click to flip

11 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Slaughter-House Cases-
Bradleys dissent?
1873-Offers narrow reading of P & I clause
6. Bradley’s dissent: (by 1890’s court embraces this theory of Due Process)
a. Traditional free labor principle
b. 14th was meant to build confidence in the federal gov (to give voice to national yearning for guarantee of freedom)
i. Bill of Rights applies to states
ii. Broad reading of what it was supposed to accomplish
Which Amendements were not incorporated into the BoR
2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th
2-Arms
3- putting solders in homes
5-Grand jury indictment
7th- Jury trials in civil trials
Downes v. Bidwell?
Whites Concurrence?
Basic Rule?
PR is not part of the US for purposes of Art. I §9 (uniformity In tax clause). But there are some limits on what Congress can do in the territories.
----White Concurrence (essentially the current law)-
---Things called incorporated territories: (everyone expects them to become states) They are part of U.S.
---There are other territories that are unincorporated: They are territories that wont become states (such as Puerto Rico)
b.PR’s carry a U.S. passport but cannot vote.
c.Guantanamo Bay: 500 yr lease from Cuba as naval base
d.Basic Rule—Can hold territory and U.S. Constitution does not apply in full.
Nebbia v. NY
Upheld state law regulating milk production: 4. Court appeared to question the premises of the Lochner era that the gov could only regulate to achieve a police purpose and the court needed to review the law aggressively to ensure that they truly served a police purpose.
iHome Building & Loan Assoc. v. Blaisdell (1934)
1. Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium law of 1933—allowed state courts to extend the redemption period in which a person could pay to get their property back if they defaulted on a loan
a. Bank challenged as unconstitutional under the K Clause—this law impairs the obligations of Ks
2. Majority—K Clause is not a mechanical formula; what’s important is that the state not interfere w/ the core purpose of the K
a. States may alter the form of the remedy provided so long as they don’t interfere w/ the parties’ substantive rights under the K
i. Any interference must be reasonable
3. Rationale—contemporary economic life (Great Depression)
a. Since economy is more complex and interrelated, state has more important role in protecting individuals
i. Even if this law would have been unconstitutional at time Constitution was written, it needs to be evaluated in light of modern experiences (the emergency of the depression at the time)
4. Court focused on the K clause and not substantive due prcess but showed Court’s increased willingness to defer to gov economic regulatins
5. Dissent—strict reading of K Clause clearly prohibits this type of law
a. Intention of the framers—what would they have thought about this law?
West Coast Hotel
Uphled state law requiring min wage for women:
1. liberty of K is subject to restraints of due process and reasonable legislation (Overrules Atkins v. Children’s Hospital)
2. Constitution does not speak to freedom of K. it speaks of liberty and due process…Regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interest of the community is due process.
3. If it’s reasonable, the state can do it
4. Court said that the gov was not limited to regulation to improve public safety, health, morals… there is an addition consideration ….the exploitation of a class of workers who are in unequal bargaining position and are thus relatively defenseless against the denial of a living wage, detrimental to their health but cast a direct burden on the community to support them.”
5. Rationale—Court notes that certain people are in an inferior bargaining position, therefore minimum wage laws are appropriate, (idea of that Lochner era was favoring business and giving its own economic theory, [i.e. free market] but that’s not right)
US v. Carolene Products?
Upholds federal law prohibiting shipping "filled milk" in IC.
Rational Basis test: a. Tiers of Scrutiny: footnote 4:
i. Certain laws, based on their subject matter, will be reviewed more closely than economic or commercial regulation
ii. i.e. (laws that seem to facially interfere w/ a prohibition under the Constitution or when it is directed at “Discrete and insular minorities”
iii. Economic liberties will receive minimal judicial protection, and other types of liberties will receive more
South Carolina v. Katzenback
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (only applied to specific southern jurisdictions and outlawed literacy test) - Congress can pass specific rules to protect voting rights. Broad reading of § 2 power – invokes McCulloch. While literacy tests don’t violate the 15th in themselves, here there was ample evidence that the application in these jurisdictions violated the 15th.
a. Katzenbach v. Morgan (CB 576) –
Conflict between VRA and NY state law – Broad grant of power – similar to Rational Basis – to Congress to determine what is appropriate to enforce § 1 of the 14th.
i. Don’t look at whether the action Congress is regulating violates § 1 of the 14th, only look to whether Congress has the power to act under § 5 (no clear limit on § 5 power).
ii. Conflict between majority and dissent
1. dissent saying by allowing congress power to enforce this you are allowing them to reinterpret the 14th amendment.
City of Boerne v. Flores (CB 629)
City challenged RFRA. § 5 power limited to enforcing the provisions of the 14th. Congress can’t alter its meaning by interpreting the Free Exercise Clause differently than the Court. Congress’s power is solely remedial – can’t sweep in a vast amount of conduct not prohibited
i. Test: there must be a congruence and proportionality between problem, as defined by courts, and the remedy. RFRA is unconstitutional b/c it applies to conduct not protected by the 1st as interpreted by the Court.
ii. Understand basics of employment division v, Smith (background info) neutral applicable law is fine: Congress trying to use Compelling interest test: going back to Marbury- Court saying we are the final interp of what the Constitution says.
iii. Narrowing Katzenbach v. Morgan- Confines Morgan to its facts- Court says we are not going to allow Congress to be that expansive.
U.S. v. Morrison (CB 643
– VAWA can’t be upheld under § 5 power b/c § 1 of the 14th only applies to state action (Civil Rights Cases’s state action requirement still good law). Also, this law wouldn’t pass the City of Boerne “congruence and proportionality” test.
i. Understand difference between state action and state inaction and where congress can act