Constitutional Law midterms Flashcards
Can congress regulate activities in resteraunts? What authority?
Yes. Ollies BBQ [Katzenbach {owned Ollie’s} v. McClung]
Can congress regulate / enact regulations that prevent racial discrimination in hotels?
If so, why?
If so, case?
Yes.
Why = Substantial effects test, this will effect IC. Hotel is likely off of a public highway [Channel of IC] making the Hotel an [Instrumentality] of IC.
Case =This is similar to concepts applied in Ollies BBQ.
Define the 3 tests of authority as related / applied to CC analysis.
- Channels of IC
- Instrumentalities of IC
- Substantial effects test
Congress has power where activity that is ____ in character _____ effects IC.
Where activity that is ‘economic’ in character, ‘substantially’ effects IC.
- CC authority attaches when to instate activities? [Substantial effects test]
- If it attaches, what authority?
- When those instate activities have a ‘substantial’ effect on IC.
- Plenary authority when CC attaches at the boarder.
Congress may regulate local activity if that activity exerts a ‘substantial’ economic effect on IC.
What case?
Wickard.
Brief summary of facts in Wickard?
Wickard was making and consuming his own wheat. The SC argued that this had a ‘substantial economic’ effect on IC.
Whats the big deal with wickard?
This case expanded authority under the CC to regulate purely local activity via the ‘substantial economic’ effect test.
What rule did Wickard introduce?
Substantial effects test [Still with us today]
[Case?]Congress may regulate the production of homegrown weed because this activity, taken in the aggregate, could have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
Raich case. [Gonzalez {AG} v. Raich]
Wickard =
Raich =
Both regulated by what test?
Wickard = Wheat
Raich = Weed
Both regulated by ‘Substantial effects’ test.
What’s notable about CJ Scalia’s holding in Raich?
He reads the CC more broadly than ever b4, which is unusual for him.
Gonzalez v. Raich is essentially what case all over again in modern times?
Wickard. This present case upheld the ‘Substantial economic’ effects test from Wickard.
When does Congress have the power to regulate “stuff?”
1.
2.
3.
[3 sources of CC authority]
- Channels of IC
- Instrumentalities of IC
- Substantial effects test [Wickard (wheat) & Raich (weed)]
The _________Doctrine refers to the power of Congress to regulate any activity which, in the aggregate, has a ‘substantial economic effect’ on interstate commerce.
Affectation Doctrine
___ challenge: The law as it reads is invalid.
_____ challenge: the law as it is applied is invalid.
Facial challenge
As applied challenge
Midterm: According to CJ Scalia, if Congress wants to enact comprehensive regulatory scheme, what do they need?
N&P coupled with CC
According to CJ Scalia, what allows congress to penetrate deep into the states?
N&P + CC
If Congress wants to regulate activity in-state that is not entirely economic, according CJ _______ they need the N&P + CC.
CJ Scalia = N&P + CC to go deep into state after activities not economic
How can congress enact comprehensive regulatory schemes for just about anything?
N&P + CC
Congress can regulate commerce activities but they can’t make you engage in it. [T/F]
Case?
True.
Sebelius [2012]
If you have broccoli farm in CA, can congress task FDA with sending inspectors to farm to make sure your broccoli is safe? [Regulating local activities]
Yes. No doubt since abandonment of EC Knight and upholding of new cases such as Raich (weed) & Wickard. (Wheat)
What is required to amend constitution?
2/3 house & senate majority
then 3/4 states {38} to ratify
How many amendments thus far?
- Only 15 valid.
Outside of amendments & ratification, what is another route for Constitutional amendments?
SC Interpretation
Does the preamble create legal rights or powers?
No
Article I =
Article 2 =
Article 3 =
Article 4 Sec 3 Clause 2=
Article 5 =
Article 6 =
- Legislative
- Executive
- Judicial
What was the Sebelius [2012] case about?
- Obama care mandates
- Not ok under CC authority but ok under tax authority + N&P clause
“the Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to compel individuals to engage in commercial activity.” [Case?]
Sebelius [2012]
____: Difficulty inherent with changing the law.
Entrenchment
What did Marbuy v. Madison establish?
Judicial review
What case established that “The Supreme Court has the authority to review laws/acts to determine compliance with the Constitution.”
Marbuy v. Madison
What year was Marbury v. Madison decided?
1803
What did Marbury want in his claim?
Commission of his position.
What court order did Marbuy seek?
Writ of Mandamus “we command”
Writ of mandamus?
“We command” - MvM
Who did Marbury have grievence with?
Secretary of State [James Madison] who refused to deliver the commission.
What act was invalidated in Marbury v. Madison? Why?
Judicial Act of 1789 – You can’t expand SC authority beyond what provided in Article III.
SC usually hears ____ cases. This was a problem in MvM b/c Marbury brought a case for ‘first instance.’
Appellate
Where does SC have ‘original J?’
- Foreign diplomats
- Controversy between states
[Everything else is appellate]
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have ______ Jurisdiction. “
Original
“Any law that conflicts with the Constitution is no law at all.” – Who?
Chief Justice Marshall
What is the only way to change constitutional provisions?
Ratification of new amendments.
CJ Marshall essentially makes a 2 pronged [text] argument of authority in MvM.
- Supremacy clause
- Oath of office to US
What is CJ Marshalls arguments in MvM?
1. Text
2. Structure
3. Theory
4. Doctrinal
- Supremacy clause & oath
- Judicial branch says what law is.
- Compact theory
- Judicial review
______ theory: The constitution is a compact among the ppl, who have ultimate authority. Delegates may not exercise authority the ppl have not delegated them.
Compact Theory
“State officials are bound by orders of the Supreme Court based on its interpretation of the US Constitution.”
[This includes old cases]
Cooper v. Aaron