Constitutional Law- Spring 2015
Professor Stinneford
Who is the Sovereign?
Chisholm v. Georgia- GA makes purchase from SC businessman and does not pay him for it, estate sues GA, and GA says they don’t have to appear because they are a sovereign and independent sate, not subject to Federal power
· Issue: who is the sovereign? Are states subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution/Federal government?
· Article III Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority… to controversies to which United States shall be a party; –to controversies between two or more states,– to controversies between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects
· Chisholm argues that it is explicitly stated in the Constitution here
o GA signed the constitution, so they signed on for this
o People are sovereign, state is a group of people and people are bound by law so states should be bound by law also
o If state can sue citizens of another sate, citizens of another state should be able to sue a state
· Dissent argues that if you are the sovereign, you are the source of law, not subject to law; people would have no right to sue you.
o The state, as the sovereign cannot be sued unless consented to (by an act of the legislature)
But….. 11th Amendment
“The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens of Subjects of any Foreign State”
· Basically overturns Chisholm v. Georgia
· Seems like it is saying that the interpretation of Article III, section 2 by the Supreme Court was wrong
Marbury v. Madison- confusing facts, Old president appointed Marbury as Justice of the Peace, next president didn’t commission and Marbury sued seeking delivery of commission
· Issues:
1. Does Marbury have a right to commission?
a. Yes, the grant of the commission was effective when signed and sealed by the first president
2. Does the law grant Marbury a remedy?
a. Yes, when there is a plain violation of law, the job of government is to protect citizens and provide a remedy
3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of and determine whether they are constitutional and therefore void?
a. Yes, the supreme courts job is to apply the law, if laws are in conflict, they pick what is right
4. Can congress expand the scope of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution?
a. No, it is explicitly stated in Article III section 2 that “ in all other cases, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction” (NOT original)
5. BUT, Supreme Court doesn’t have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, so he doesn’t get the commission
McCulloch v. Maryland- Maryland wants to tax any bank not chartered by the State of Maryland, so taxed the national bank
· Issues: Is the bank constitutional? Is the tax constitutional?
· Maryland argues: it is a sovereign state, so it has the authority from its people to regulate business and tax institutions within the state. Regulation of banks is necessary to prevent financial abuses, and federal governemtn created statutes regulating state banks, so why shouldn’t Maryland be able to regulate Federal Banks. AND the constitution provides no authority for the federal government to charter a national bank under Article 1 section 8, so the National bank is unconstitutional
· BUT Court says: No. Constitution is supreme over the laws of states, although there is no enumerated power to allow the creation of a national bank, the necessary and proper clause grants congress the power of “ making all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.”
o “Necessary” isn’t a limitation, but applies to any means with a legitimate end within the scope of the constitution
· Necessary and Proper clause, necessary isn’t a limitation, Constitution is the supreme law of the land
Gibbons v. Ogden- NY state law gave individual exclusive right to operate steam boats in waters within state jurisdiction, Gibbons sued, claiming that the state couldn’t regulate it because it was “commerce” for the federal government to regulate
· Issue: Can a state regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states while congress is regulating it?
· Article 1, Section 8 grants congress power to regulate commerce among the several states. Commerce means more than traffic, it also encompasses navigation.
· The phrase “among several states” in the commerce clause means “intermingled with them,” so the Congress’ power to regulate must not stop at the eternal boundary line of each state, it also extends into the states interior and the power of congress to regulate within its proper sphere (in this case interstate commerce) is exclusive
· * Commerce clause doesn’t apply to commerce that is completely internal and doesn’t affect other states
· The power to regulate commerce is the power “to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be goverened”
· Commerce clause, definition of Commerce, meaning of “among several states”
Barron v. City of Baltimore- Owner of a wharf in the Baltimore Harbor sued claiming that as city developed, sand accumulated in the harbor and ruined his wharf/business, sued to recover his financial losses
· Issue: Does the 5th Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without just compensation? (Does the 5th Amendment apply to local governments?
· Plaintiff argues that the city took his property without just compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
· Court says no, framers intended Amendments to apply only to the Federal government and not the states, no words specifically stating that the amendments apply to states, Supreme Court refuses to recognize them.
· The Constitution was designed for the Federal government, States have their own Constitution with their own powers
· Bill of Rights does not apply to state and local government, only to the Federal Government
Prigg v. Pennsylvania- Slave moves to Pennsylvania (a free state) with permission of owner and marries a free black and has children. Owner’s estate comes and takes wife and children, claiming that they are property of the estate
· Prigg (the slave catcher) was convicted of kidnapping under Pennsylvania law. His defense is the Fugitive Slave Act, he was just reclaiming his property, and because Federal law supersedes state law, Fugitive Slave Act is supreme over Pennsylvania law
· Fugitive Slave Act constitutional? Court says yes.
United States v. Dewitt- guy charged with selling oil made of petroleum against law enacted by congress
· Issue: Has congress power, under the constitution to prohibit trade within the limits of a state?
· No, law is unconstitutional (except in areas of federal jurisdiction like DC) because it infringes on the state’s police power
Legal Tender Cases
Legal Tender- means all creditors have to accept
indirect and remote as to obliterate the line between local and national authority, then congress can regulate it
United States v. Darby-accused of violating the Fair labor standards act (regulates labor conditions) with low wages and long hours, challenges the constitutionality of the act
· Darby argues that the act regulates wages and hours, not commerce itself, so it is unconstitutional because it is outside the scope of the commerce clause
· Court said that although the manufacture of goods is not itself interstate commerce, the shipment of manufactures goods interstate is within the regulatory powers of congress.
· The judiciary does not have the power to question the motive and purpose of the legislature, those are matters of legislative judgment which is not restricted by the constitution
· Congress’s power over interstate commerce extends to intrastate activities, so long as the intrastate activities have a substantial effect on the commerce or the exercise of Congressional power over it
Wickard v. Filburn- Filburn says growing his own wheat for personal consumption is not commerce, is not interstate, and there is no substantial effect on commerce
· Government says not consuming does effect commerce, refusing to engage in commerce IS commerce
· Although individual might not effect commerce, there is an effect in the aggregate if everyone does it
· One of the greatest exercises of the commerce power recognized by the supreme court
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States- Hotel with 216 rooms, advertises in all kinds of publications, billboards, etc., about 70% of the rooms are rented to out of town guests, and refuses to rent rooms to African Americans, in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
· Hotel says that the 5th Amendment is violated because of the due process clause, they should be able to choose their customers
· Government says no, they have the right to regulate, so long as congress had a rational basis for finding that racial discrimination by motel affected commerce, and the means to eliminate the discrimination is reasonable
Katzenbach v. McClung- restaurant challenging the constitutionality of the civil rights act, barbecue restaurant did not allow black to eat in the restaurant, they get about 46% of food that was sourced in another state, not too close to the interstate, primary clientele for eat in dining was white collar and families (somewhat upper class) not a lot of evidence that interstate travelers eat there often
· “Any restaurant principally engages in selling food for consumption on the premises” under the act “if it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which is served has moved in commerce”
· in the aggregate, this conduct could have a harmful effect on interstate commerce
· When there is a rational relation between the legislative objective of protecting commerce and the means chosen to do so, congress may exercise its commerce power
