Judicial Process Ch6 10.15.10

Front 1

Alexander Hamilton No. 7

Back 1

States cannot have independent rights of commerce

Hint 1

1

Front 2

Article 1 Section 8

Back 2

17 enumerated powers

Hint 2

2

Front 3

Balkanization <>

Back 3

Combination of state regulations which impinge on IC, not just one state.

Hint 3

3

Front 4

Brooks v US

Back 4

1925, upheld state law banning the transport of stolen vehicles

Hint 4

4

Front 5

Buck v. Kuykendall

Back 5

1925, upholding motor transportation laws. e.g. vehicle licensing

Hint 5

5

Front 6

Burbank v Lockheed Air Terminal

Back 6

1973, striking down a law regulating take-off and landing hours

Hint 6

6

Front 7

C&A Carbone v Clarkstown

Back 7

1994, struck down states (as regulator) monopolizing location of trash deposits and transactions for trash removal.

Hint 7

7

Front 8

Concurrent commerce doctrine <>

Back 8

Allowing states to regulate commerce in the absence of Nat’l legislation

Hint 8

8

Front 9

Court-packing plan <>

Back 9

FDR's attempt to replace SCOTUS with ideologies that would permit the New Deal

Hint 9

9

Front 10

Daniel v Paul

Back 10

1969, regulated local parks since 3 of 4 items sold were a product of interstate commerce.

Hint 10

10

Front 11

Direct versus indirect effects <>

Back 11

If this state law has direct or indirect impact on Interstate Commerce.
1. Does the state law discriminate Interstate versus local commerce?
2. If not, does the state law place a burden on Interstate commerce?

Hint 11

11

Front 12

Dormant commerce power <>

Back 12

The states are limited in commerce even when their is no legislation for it

Hint 12

12

Front 13

Exclusive commerce doctrine <>

Back 13

Commerce clause limited only to nat'l gov't

Hint 13

13

Front 14

Hipolite Egg co v US

Back 14

1911, Upheld congresses provisions on adulterated eggs even though they were not be sold for pure consumption but for mixing

Hint 14

14

Front 15

Hoke v US

Back 15

1913, Upheld a state law banning women being transported for immoral purposes

Hint 15

15

Front 16

Houston E&W Texas Ry v US AKA Shreveport case

Back 16

1914,Upheld the Interstate Commerce Commission to order a fixed interstate railroad rate to prevent balkanization.

Hint 16

16

Front 17

Hughes v Alexandria Scarp Co.

Back 17

1976,cited in Reeves v Stake, car hulk disposal, upheld states as market participants to regulate clients, in or out of state.

Hint 17

17

Front 18

James Madison No. 42 & 45

Back 18

No. 42, it is unfair for coastal states to tax states of the interior geography.
No. 45, Commerce power to be exercised on foreign commerce

Hint 18

18

Front 19

Kidd v Pearson

Back 19

1888, Upheld congress regulating not only what is shipped but what is produced, cultured, and manufactured

Hint 19

19

Front 20

Mann Act

Back 20

An act regulating the transportation of women for immoral purposes

Hint 20

20

Front 21

Market participant

Back 21

The state as an owner of productions

Hint 21

21

Front 22

Market regulator

Back 22

The state as a regulator of private companies

Hint 22

22

Front 23

Morehead v New York Tipaldo

Back 23

1936, Struck down NY minimum wage, lower than National minimum

Hint 23

23

Front 24

National police power

Back 24

Congress, through commerce, may regulate social goals instead of just economic goals

Hint 24

24

Front 25

New deal

Back 25

FDR's agenda in getting out of the great depression. Social security, bank inspections,work relief, extended mortgages.

Hint 25

25

Front 26

New York v. Miln

Back 26

1837, upholding states requiring passenger information from vessels docking their shores.

Hint 26

26

Front 27

Northern Securities v US

Back 27

1904, struck down an attempt to control interstate commerce through monopolization of railways. Sherman Anti-trust act was applied.

Hint 27

27

Front 28

Panama refining co v Ryans

Back 28

1935, struck down congress delegating commerce powers when it comes to hot oil. Why? Because congress said they had no standard.

Hint 28

28

Front 29

Pike v. Brush Church Inc

Back 29

1970, balancing test,cost-benefit theory

Hint 29

29

Front 30

Police Power (4)

Back 30

Powers retained by the states on Health Safety Welfare Morals

Hint 30

30

Front 31

Protectionism <>

Back 31

Preference of domestic goods (within the state) over import (other states).

Hint 31

31

Front 32

Railroad Retirement Board v Alton RR Co

Back 32

1935, Struck down a railroad retirement program requiring carriers to subscribe to pension plans

Hint 32

32

Front 33

Raymon Motor Transportation v Rice & Kassel v Consolidated Freightways

Back 33

1978 & 1981, State ban on 65-foot commercial trucks

Hint 33

33

Front 34

Reeves Inc v Stake

Back 34

1980,Upheld states (as participants of cement plant) to choose in-state customers versus out-of-state customers.

Hint 34

34

Front 35

Scechter Poultry Co. v US

Back 35

1935, struck down legislation that outlawed selective customers for chicken quality

Hint 35

35

Front 36

Selective exclusiveness or Cooley doctrine <>

Back 36

Developed in the Cooley case that certain parts of commerce are allowed to the states e.g. piloting (Cooley v. Board of Warden)

Hint 36

36

Front 37

Sherman Anti-trust Act <>

Back 37

1890, to limit corporations from monopolizing and controlling interstate commerce.

Hint 37

37

Front 38

South Carolina v. Barnwell

Back 38

1938, approved state provisions of dimensions of commercial trucks

Hint 38

38

Front 39

South-central Timber Inc. v Wunnickee <>

Back 39

1984,Struck down Alaska to require instate cutting since it was a participant in some aspects of the timber process.

Hint 39

39

Front 40

Swift v US

Back 40

1905, upheld congress' regulation of meat-packers agreement not to bid against each other to prevent monopoly.

Hint 40

40

Front 41

United Haulers v Oneida-Herkimire Solid Waste <>

Back 41

2007, upheld private companies monopolizing location of trash deposits and transactions of trash removals.

Hint 41

41

Front 42

Wabash, St.Louis & Pacific Ray Co. v Illinois

Back 42

1886,struck down states (market regulators) to charge different rates to different states.

Hint 42

42

Front 43

Wilson v. Black Bird March Co. <>

Back 43

1829, Allowed states to erect dam in federal waters for the sake of the environment

Hint 43

43

Front 44

Constitutional Revolution of 1937

Back 44

SCOTUS response to court-packing plan by upholding FDR's new deal agenda. Extending IC powers and general welfare clause.

Hint 44

44

Front 45

Cost-Benefit Rule

Back 45

To weight the cost-benefit of state policy with the cost-benefit with national commerce

Front 46

US v. Darby <>

Back 46

1941, overturned Hammer v. Daggenhart, it fixed minimum wage, maximum hours, and banned shipment of goods made unlawfully.(child-labor)

Front 47

3 views the court hold on commerce

Back 47

1.Broad definition of commerce
2.Looking to the affects on commerce
3.10th Amendment is no limit on congress