CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCAPERLANDA FALL 2012
I. FOUNDATIONS
A. Federalist Papers
B. Judicial Review
Marbury v. Madison
Facts: Marbury argued that Judiciary act of 1789 allowed writ of mandamus in proceeding filed initially in federal court. HOWEVER, Court said that this JA1789 is unconstitutional because Congress couldn’t expand SC jurisdiction.
Importance: Established authority for the judiciary to review constitutionality of executive and legislative acts
· Constitution doesn’t specifically give Judicial branch to review other branches
· Congress cannot increase SC original jurisdiction
· Federal courts – limited jurisdiction (art. 3)
Reasons given by Court to declare unconstitutional (Marshall)
1. Constitution imposes limits on government power and limits are meaningless unless subject to judicial review (basically would give unlimited power otherwise) (article 3 SS 3)
2. Inherent to judicial role to determine constitutionality of law it applies
3. Court authority to decide cases arising under Constitution implied powers to declare laws unconstitutional
4. Enforcing unconstitional laws would force Court to violate oath (article 4, clause 3)
5. Supreme law of the land (Article 6 clause 2)
C. Necessary and Proper Clause
McCulloch v. Maryland
Facts: Constitutionality of a state law incorporating a national bank, Maryland tried to tax the bank, bank refused. Goes up to SC. Reversed for McCulloch – taxing NOT allowed.
Importance:
Questions Presented (Marshall)
1. Does Congress have ability to incorporate a national bank?
a. Historical practice established the power of Congress
b. Rejects “compact federalism” – federal government is supreme over states & states cant negate federal action
c. Expansively defines scope of Congress’s power – not everything can be express, it would be impossible. (Words shouldn’t be taken to literally)
d. Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1 § 8) textual affirmation
2. Constitutionality of Maryland’s tax
a. Power to tax is power to destroy, which defeats power to create
b. Therefore unconstitutional
II. FEDERALISM
COMMERCE CLAUSE (Article 1 § 8) “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes”
Origins
Gibbons v. Ogden
Facts: NY granted monopoly to 2 steamboat operators in the waters, who then authorized Ogden to operate a ferry. Gibbons, another ferry operator was sued by Ogden for injunction. NY Law v. Federal Law. Monopoly preempted by federal law (fed law > state law). Monopoly was impermissible restriction on interstate commerce.
Importance: expands definition of commerce – extends to effects of other states. Commerce is more than just traffic – it includes ALL phases of business including navigation (intercourse)
· Congress power is plenary
· Can regulate streams of commerce
· “Among states” – among = intermingled with
· Can regulate purely local if it effects interstate activities
· Not limited by state sovereignty, Congress has complete authority to regulate commerce among states
· 10th amendment – powers not expressly given to Federal Govt, given to states – DOES NOT limit Congress power in commerce
· New Deal and onward – Rational Basis
o If commercial – rational basis and law upheld
o Non-commercial – regulation is per se invalid
Wilson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co.
Facts: 1882, Delaware passed a law building a dam as part of land, which caused damage to a sailboat down the creek. Wilson argued that creek should be navigable to all of Delaware and law infringed on Congress power to regulate interstate commerce
Importance: Nothing against states making law that could impact interstate trade as along as they are not in conflict with Congress’ mandates regulating commerce. Not invalid because no previous law (Dormant Commerce Clause)
· Dormant Commerce Clause – restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that burdens against interstate commerce
o Courts can regulate streams of commerce, within state police power.
Progressive
United States v. E.C Knight
Facts:
Importance: Attempts to restrict Congress’ reach by narrowing definition of “commerce” and “among states”. Only federal government can regulate monopolistic behavior of commerce only but NOT manufacturing (local government)
· Manufacturing = not commerce, can only be regulated if interstate
· “Among other states” = regulate only when substantial effect
· “Commerce” = buying and selling of goods, not manufacturing or production
Champion v. Ammes (The Lottery Case)
Facts: Lottery tickets transferred from Texas to California violating 1895 Congressional Act. Defense says transportations of tickets not commerce, government say it is.
· Regulation power is plenary; no limitations except those found in constitution
· Lotto tickets within the state is OK, among states is NOT.
· End must be LEGITMATE
Importance: Protecting public morals, Congressional power = plenary.
· Congress said Court can prohibit interstate commerce
Hamer v. Dagenhart (The Child Labor Case)
Facts: Federal law prohibited sale of goods manufactured in conditions in which children worked too many hours. Court held that federal government could not regulate commerce if they sought to control mining, manufacturing and production. Since this was manufacturing, must be left up to states to regulate.
Importance: Act unconstitutional because takes power from state no regulation allowed, left up to states.
New Deal
nduct’s aggregated effect on interstate commerce
· Limits scope of Congress’ commerce power by narrowing the ability of Congress to regulated based on findings of “substantial effects” on interstate commerce
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Facts: Does Congress have power under Commerce Clause to prohibit the local cultivation & use of marijuana in compliance with California law? Court upheld law saying it falls under commerce regulation power.
Importance: modified Lopez, rehabilitates Wickard. Congress can regulate purely INTRASTATE activity that is not itself commercial if failure to regulate would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity
· Necessary and Proper…”among the states”
· Don’t need to look to aggregate, just “rational basis”
Summation of Commerce Clause
· Instrumentality or channel of interstate commerce or commercial commercial/economic activity affecting commerce
o Deferential Rational Basis Test: burden on challenger to demonstrate that Congress did not act rationally
· Non-commercial, local activity – congress cannot regulate under Commerce Clause UNLESS regulation is “essential part of larger regulation of economic activity” & not regulating intrastate would undercut regulatory scheme
Dormant Commerce Clause
Article 1 SS 8, Clause 3: Court construed commerce clause both as a grant of lower to the national government and as a limitation on the power of states
· If Congress has enacted federal legislation under the commerce clause, any conflicting state laws will be struck down under the Supremacy Clause
· If not federal legislation, the clause remains dormant, but state laws that burden or discriminate against interstate or foreign commerce may be invalidated
· If the state is doing something – Dormant Commerce Clause (self-executing)
o With Commerce Clause – Supreme Court has final say
o With Dormant Commerce Clause – Congress has final say
Discrimination Test for Dormant Commerce Clause
Does it discriminate?
If yes – Per se rule: subject to strict scrutiny. State has burned of proving the law is necessary
If no – pike balance test (ad hoc): whether burden imposed on such commerce is excessive in relation to punitive local benefits. (If excessive – invalid)
