1 / 17

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. CLASS 7 January 23, 2007 The Commerce Clause I History of Interpretation Up to 1995. INTERPRETATION: IMPORTANCE. Tushnet: “ only method practically available in US constitutional law to deal with change and its consequences for the constitutional code.”.

curt
Télécharger la présentation

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

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 7 January 23, 2007 The Commerce Clause I History of Interpretation Up to 1995

  2. INTERPRETATION: IMPORTANCE • Tushnet: • “only method practically available in US constitutional law to deal with change and its consequences for the constitutional code.”

  3. VAGUE TERMS: “Commerce”,“Among the . . . States” • COMMERCE CLAUSE ART. I § 8, cl. 3: Congress has the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States. . . .“

  4. GIBBONS v. OGDEN (1824) (CB p. 124)

  5. SINCE GIBBONS • Many cases before the Court have concerned the scope of the commerce power • Over time, the Congress has used its commerce power to justify many pieces of legislation that may seem only marginally related to commerce. • The Supreme Court of the United States has, at various points in history, been more or less sympathetic to the use of the Commerce Clause to justify congressional legislation

  6. 1895-1936 • Interpretation of commerce power – broad or narrow?

  7. United States v. E.C. Knight (1895) (CB p. 126) • Could the Sherman Antitrust Act suppress a monopoly in the manufacture of a good (sugar) as well as its distribution? • Suit by US vs. 5 sugar manufacturing companies to prevent a monopoly resulting after a stock purchase merger

  8. United States v. E.C. Knight (1895) (CB p. 126) • Justice Melville Fuller wrote the majority opinion, joined by 7 other justices • Justice Harlan dissented

  9. STREAM OF COMMERCE • In some cases during this 1895-1936 period, the Court was willing to interpret the Commerce Clause to permit regulation of local activities, e.g. Swift & Co. v. United States (1905) (stream of commerce theory); Shreveport Rate Cases (1914) (substantial effects theory),

  10. Swift & Co. v. United States (1905) (CB p. 129) • Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court

  11. Shreveport Rate Cases (1914) (CB p. 128) • Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the majority opinion • 2 justices dissented without opinion

  12. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) (CB p. 135 • Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the majority opinion, joined by 6 other justices • Justice Cardozo wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Stone

  13. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936) (CB p. 137) • Justice Sutherland wrote the majority opinion (one of the “Four Horsemen”) • Left the Court in 1938 • Justice Cardozo wrote a dissent, joined by Brandeis and Stone

  14. Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton, 295 U.S. 330 (1935) (CB p. 135) • Justice Roberts (the first) wrote the majority opinion • Chief Justice Hughes joined by Brandeis, Stone, and Cardozo, dissented

  15. Oyez Trivia Question • Which baseball figure that is most like Justice Owen Roberts? • A. Tony Mullane • B. Bob Shawkey • C. Charlie Gehringer

  16. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) (CB p. 132) • Justice Day wrote the majority opinion • Powerful dissent by Justice Holmes (pictured left) (joined by McKenna, Brandeis, and Clarke

  17. Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321 (1903) (CB p. 130) • 5-4 • Majority opinion written by Justice Harlan • Dissent by Chief Justice Fuller, joined by Brewer, Shiras, and Peckham

More Related