Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
20 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
McCulloch v. Maryland
|
1819 [Maj=Marshall] (Federal bank / Maryland taxing federal bank) Federal supremacy "supreme within its sphere" / Congress may use any appropriate means to a legitimate end under Necessary and proper clause / power to tax is power to destroy / "we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding"
|
Federal bank / Maryland taxing federal bank
|
|
|
Gibbons v. Ogden
|
1824 [Maj=Marshall] (New York steamboat monopoly) Commerce includes navigation / Commerce power includes commerce which concerns more states than one / not those which are completely within a state and don't affect other states / Commerce power plenary - only limited by constitution/ check on commerce power political
|
New York steamboat monopoly
|
|
|
United States. v. EC Knight CO
|
1895 [Maj: Fuller](Sugar monopoly 98% of market) Direct v. Indirect, Manufacturing not commerce / nothing would be left for states - federalismCommerce power does not extend to manufacturing / secondary not primary /intent of manufacturer to export irrelevant / little would be left to States
|
Sugar monopoly (98% of market)
|
|
|
Shreveport Rate Case
|
[Maj. Hughs] Congress can regulate intrastate matters that have a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce and that is essential or appropriate
|
|
|
|
Swift & Co. v US
|
steam of commerce-
|
cattle moving through interstate commerce
|
|
|
Champion v. Ames
|
police-power like regulation- can ban interstate commerce / remedy for overreaching political / constitutional to use commerce clause to regulate moral concerns (national police power)
|
lottery case
|
|
|
Hammar v. Daggenhart
|
nature of the goods that matters / can't regulate manufacturing under guise of commerce / states rights- federalism
|
|
|
|
Hammar v. Daggenhart Dissent
|
ONE QUESTION only- does it affect commerce? Nothing else matters
|
|
|
|
Schechter
|
End of the chain is not commerce / consistent with ec knight and daggenhart / after this stream of commerce argument used less
|
|
|
|
Carter Coal
|
non-agration- empirical distinction indirect relation still indirect even is effect is significant
|
|
|
|
Wickard
|
Aggregation- can regulate consumption and production even if local if in the aggregate effect on commerce is substantial-- / congress has the authority to regulate / doesn't matter if production, direct or indirect, or if it is not commerce- only test is "substantial economic effect on interstate commerce" and the affect can be agreegated/ trival by itself but taken together with that of many others is far from trivial
|
4 dissenting justices from NLRB retired
|
|
|
Heart Atlanta v. United States
|
discrimination burden on interstate commerce / test is (1) commerce that concerns more states than 1 (2) real and substantial relation to the national interest
|
|
|
|
Lopez
|
Possesion of guns on school grounds is not economic activity like Wickard - 3 categories of regulation
|
|
|
|
Garcia
|
traditional not appliable
|
|
|
|
Marbury v. Madison
|
"1803 (Marshall)[B/S] Jurisdictional requirements of constitution and judicial review ""It is emphatically the province and duty of the judical department to say what the law is."" [F/P] Marbury sued in U.S. Supreme Cout under original jurisdiction for a writ of mandamus ordering Sec. of state Madison to deliver his judicial commission. [I] (a.) Constitutionality of statute giving S.C. original jurisdiction over petitions of mandamus (b.) result if statute is unconstitutional. [H] (a.) Statute unconstitutional (b.) unconstitutional statute is void. [R] Const. lists specific cases for original jurisdiction and ""In all other cases, the Court shall have appellate jurisdiction."" Original jurisdiction in other types of cases renders this language superfluous. When interpreting the constitution, all clauses must be read to have effect unless the language of the constitution itself requires them to be without effect. Therefore the clause must be read as an exclusive list of all types of cases in which the court may exercise jurisdiction. Const. wins over statute because Con. is drafted by “people” “people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principals as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness
|
|
|
|
Martin v. Hunters Lessee
|
1816 (Story) the nature of the case not the court it came from determines federal jurisdiction
|
|
|
|
Cooper v. Aaron
|
1958 (Warren) state officials must follow Supreme Court orders interpreting the Const.
|
|
|
|
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
|
1992 (Scalia) [BS] Constitution requires injury, causation and redressability for standing, and congress can not legislate away requirement. [h] elements of standing (1) injury in fact - an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical (2) causal connection between injury and conduct complained (a)injury fairly traceable to action and (b) not result of independent actions of third person not before court (3)redressability- likely, not merely speculative, that injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
|
|
|
|
Lochner v. New York
|
1905 (Peckham) 14th amendment protects liberty of contract and is a substantive, not procedural right. Test of limit to valid exercise of police power: fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of police power or unreasonabe, unneccesary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty Constitutionality determined from natural effect, not the proclaimed purpose of statute. Need a direct relation to and substantial effect on health of the employee to justify a health law. DISSENT (Holmes) Only question is whether a reasonable man might think it a fair measure on account of health- 14th amendment does not enact a specific economic theory- not unconstitutional unless it can be said that a rational and fair man neccessarily would admit that the statute would infringe fundamanetal principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people of our law - Harlan dissent- Disagree that it is not a valid regulation of health.
|
|
|
|
Baker v. Carr
|
"1962 (Brennan) [BS] Court will not decide political questions. Black letter statement of political question doctrine: Elements that identify political questions: (1) textually demonstrable constitutional commitment ot political department (2) lack of judicially discoverable or manageable standards for resolution (3) imposibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clear for nonjudicial discretion (4) impossibility of independent resolution without disrespecting other branches (5) unusually need for adherence to a political decision (6) potential embarrasement from multiple pronouncements on one question (need to speak with one voice.) The issue that gives rise to the political question is the relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of the federal government, not the relationship between the federal judiciary and the States. The Court is the ultimate interpreter of the constitution so it is properly the role of the Court to decide whether a matter has been constitutionally committed to another branch of government, and if so whether that branch has exceeded its constitutional authority. (1) How it has been historically managed by the other branches (2) If it is susceptible to judicial handling in the specific case; and (3) What are the possible consequences of judicial action. DISSENT (Frankfurter) Court is being asked to chose amoung competing theories of political philosophy- matter for partisan politics not the courts - the argument is circular- the votes are only debased if you assume that one-man-one-vote is the only system
|
|
