1 / 15

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 12

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 12. DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE February 2, 2007. DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE. Relationship to preemption Relationship to Privileges and Immunities Clause in Art. IV § 2 Relationship to Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV. Should There Be A DCC?. Historical Approach.

melaney
Télécharger la présentation

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 12

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 12 DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE February 2, 2007

  2. DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE • Relationship to preemption • Relationship to Privileges and Immunities Clause in Art. IV § 2 • Relationship to Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV

  3. Should There Be A DCC?

  4. Historical Approach • Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) • “commerce” vs. “police power” distinction

  5. History: Early Taney Court • Some justices: commerce power exclusive, but police regulations constitutional • Taney: state regulations of comerce valid unless they come into conflict with a law of Congress

  6. History: Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851) (CB p. 251) National-Local Distinction

  7. History: DiSanto v. Pennsylvania (1927) • Direct/Indirect Burdens

  8. Modern Approach • 1. State Laws that facially or overtly discriminate against out-of-state interests: prima facie presumption of invalidity • 2. State Laws that are not facially or overtly discriminatory but are protectionist in purpose or effect also invalid • 3. Nondiscriminatory state laws: balancing approach

  9. West Lynn Creamery v. Healy (CB p. 264) • Stevens wrote majority opinion. O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, joined. • Concurrence by Thomas and Scalia • Dissent by Rehnquist, joined by Blackmun

  10. Camp Newfound/Owatonna V. Town of Harrison (1997) (CB p.266) • Stevens, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer, joined. • Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas and Ginsburg, joined. • Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia joined, and in which Rehnquist joined as to Part I.

  11. Home Processing Cases

  12. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970) (CB p. 286) (Stewart wrote opinion of Court)

  13. Market Participation Exception • South-Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke (1984) (CB p. 311) (cites other cases) (White joined by 3 justices)

More Related