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;
3 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Gibbons |
The Supreme Court sided with the federal goverbmebt. They held that it was necessary for the federal government to have authority which superseded the states when it came to regulating interstate commerce. Ogden and Gibbons were business partners who owned a steamboat franchise together. When they split up Gibbons bought a license which let him navigate his steamboat on rivers in state boundaries. Ogden already had the licenses but got his through the state. He sued but the Courts decided that article one section eight clause three prevailed over any state authority |
|
|
Hammer |
The Courts said that Congress doesnt have the power to regulate commerce goods that are manufactured by children and that the Keating Owner Act of 1916 was therefore unconstitutional. Drawint a distinction between the manufacture of goods and the regulation of certai. goods and what is seen as inherently evil, the Court maintained that the issue did not concern the power to keep certain immoral products out of the stream of interstate commerce. distinguishing previous cases upholding Congresses power to lottery shemes, prositution. and liqour. The Court reasoned that in those cases, the goods themselves were inherently immoral and thus open to congresdional scrunity. In this case however, the issue at hand was the manufacture of cotton, a good whose use is not immoral The court further held that the manufacture of cotton did not itself condstitute interstate commerce. the court recognized the disparate labor regulations placed the various states on unequal ground in terms of economic competiveness, but it specifically stated that Congress could not address inequality, as it was within the right of states to enact differing laws within the scope of their policy powers |
|
|
US v. Morrison |
one of the rare cases where the supreme court rules that the federal government is overstepping its powers. a US court decision which held that partd of the violence against women act of 1995 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the CC and under section 5 of the 14th amendment. the act provided a provision which allowed victims of gender motivated violence to sue perpetrators of the violence for money damages in court. the issue: can congress creatr civil renders for victims of gender motivated violence? the court hrld that congress didnt have the constitutional authority to enact the provision because gender motivated violence by private actors is neither an economic activity nor a state action. the court then decided that congress also didnt havr the power through the 14th amendment bc the amendment only gives them to regulate state action. the civil damages provision in thr act is aimed at individuals |
