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

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


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

16 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Dormant Commerce Clause

protects both individuals and artificial entities such as corporations

states acting as marketparticipants are exempt from the limits of the Dormant Commerce Clause

Article 4 Section 2

protects only flesh and blood individual nonresidents

states acting as marketparticipants are not exempt from the limits of the Privileges andImmunities Clause of Article IV, § 2

United Building and Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden


An ordinance requiring preferential hiring of city employees was held to be subject to the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

3) In what ways may federal pre-empt state or local laws

Federal statute may preempt State or local law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that Congress intended preemption of State law.

3 continued

Commerce clause gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce. Under this interpretation, states are not allowed to regulate interstate commerce.

Another interpretation is that the Clause gives Congress and the states concurrent power to regulate commerce. Under this view, state regulation of commerce is invalid only when it is preempted by federal law.

Market Participant exception to the DormantCommerce Clause

dormant commerce clause prohibits a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce except for the market participant clause

Alaska failed to operate as a market participant

Alaska could not impose "downstream" conditions in the timber-processing market as a result of its ownership of the timber itself. It imposed burdens on commerce within the market in which it is a participant.

Dames & Moore Question

Did the president have the authority to transfer Iranian funds and to nullify legal claims against Iran?

Youngstown (Steel Seizure)

can the President exercise a law, making power independent of Congress in order to protect serious national interests? No!

Black opinion: His general executive power is inapplicable since there was no relevant law here to execute

Question 6) Why is Legislatvie Veteos Unconstitutional

violating Article I, Section 1 and Section 7, and provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 of Section 7.

8) Issue of Mistretta

The Act set forth more than an “intelligible principle” or minimal standards, and was a constitutional delegation of authority by Congress

8) Morrison v. Olsen

Did the Act violate the constitutional principal of separation of powers?

The court ruled that the Act did not contradict the separation of powers doctrine

9) Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Was the President immune from prosecution in civil suit? Yes!

the President the President the president cannot be prosecuted in a civil suit while doing official presidential acts

9) Clinton v. Jones

Is a serving President,, entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of events which transpired prior to his taking office?


10) War powers act of 1973

The U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, but in an emergency the The War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of using military action.

11)Are illegal enemy combatant protected by U.S laws and U.S. Constitutions provisions?

Unlawful combatants are either combatants who fail to follow the laws of war or civilians who take part directly in hostilities without being entitled to do so.

No but they are protected international humanitarian law should protect unlawful combatants