Exam 2 Flashcards
President does not possess lawmaking authority in
domestic arena - reserved for congress
the President is the
sole organ of authority in foreign affair
Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952) - Concurring Opinion by Justice Jackson
3 zones of authority
When president acts pursuant to congressional authorization
- Authority at its maximum
- Includes all presidential powers plus congressional powers
When President acts in absence of congressional grant or denial
- Can only rely on his own presidential powers
- “Zone of Twilight” - he and Congress may possess concurrent authority
- Tests of power will rely on contextual circumstances
When President acts against will of Congress
- Authority at its lowest
- Relies on presidential powers minus congressional authority
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright (1936)
Holding:
Delegation of lawmaking authority to the President is constitutional because the President is the sole organ of authority in foreign affairs
Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952)
Holding:
Truman’s seizure of steel mills is unconstitutional because presidential authority in foreign affairs does not extend into domestic arena
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
Holding:
Indefinite detention of U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant is unconstitutional because citizens must be afforded opportunity to challenge status and detention
Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)
Holding:
The Prize Cases (1863)
Holding:
Presidential blockade is constitutional because President possesses authority to suppress insurrection
Ex parte Milligan (1866)
Holding:
Writ of habeas corpus is granted because military tribunals have no jurisdiction over citizens while U.S. courts are open
Habeas corpus
a court order to the martial or warren of a prison to turn over a prisoner
Ex parte Quirin (1942)
Holding:
Jurisdiction of military tribunal is constitutional because Quirin is an unlawful combatant who violated the laws of war
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Holding:
Relocation of Japanese individuals is constitutional in order to protect U.S. national security
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Holding:
Maryland statute taxing the national bank is unconstitutional because bank was chartered under the Necessary and Proper Clause for Congress
Missouri v. Holland (1920)
Holding:
Congressional statute enforcing Migratory Bird Treaty is constitutional because of the Necessary and Proper Clause and states do not have exclusive control over birds
Who possesses police power?
States possess exclusive police power
The federal government does not have a police power
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
Holding:
Congressional statute regulating child labor is unconstitutional because it violates state police power under the Tenth Amendment
National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)
Holding:
Amendment to FLSA is unconstitutional because traditional governmental functions of states are exclusively governed by states
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA) (1985)
Holding:
Congressional statute (and action by Labor Department) is constitutional. National League of Cities v. Usery is overturned.
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)
Holding:
Lawsuit commenced by Chisholm allowed to proceed. States are not immune from individual suits.
Implications of Decision:
The 11th amendment to the Constitution explicitly overturns the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia
New York v. United States (1992)
Holding
Congressional statute requiring states to create their own waste disposal facilities is unconstitutional because federal government cannot compel state legislation
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Holding:
The federal permit supersedes state law because Congress possesses authority over interstate commerce and navigation is considered commerce
U.S. v E. C. Knight Co. (1895)
Holding:
Federal action to prevent monopoly is invalid because manufacturing is not part of interstate commerce
Stafford v. Wallace (1922)
Holding:
Congressional statute regulating the meatpacking industry is constitutional because their stockyards are part of interstate commerce
- STREAM OF COMMERCE -
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)
Holding:
National Industrial Recovery Act is declared unconstitutional because Congress cannot delegate lawmaking authority to the Executive
The “Four Horsemen” of the Supreme Court
Butler, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland
“Switch in Time that Saves Nine”
Roberts switches his vote and sides with liberal justices to uphold New Deal statutes
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937)
Holding:
The National Labor Relations Act is constitutional because manufacturing directly affects the stream of commerce which Congress may regulate
U.S. v. Darby Lumber (1941)
Holding:
Congressional statute is constitutional because Congress has authority to prohibit shipment of goods across state lines. Hammer v. Dagenhart is overturned.
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Holding:
Congressional statute is constitutional because the over production of wheat intended for home use substantially affects interstate commerce
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Holding:
The Gun Free School Zone Act is unconstitutional because mere possession of a gun is not related to interstate commerce
Three areas of Congressional Authority over Interstate Commerce
established by Lopez
Regulate the channels of interstate commerce (movement of stuff from one place to another)
Regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce (including people) (manufacturing, production, labor)
Regulate activities that substantially affects interstate commerce
United States v. Morrison (2000)
Holding:
The Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional because Congress does not possess authority to regulate non-economic activities under the Commerce Clause
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Holding
Application of federal statute prohibiting marijuana use is valid and supersedes state law. Consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes is within the authority of Congress to prohibit.
Champion v. Ames (1903)
Holding
Congressional statute banning interstate sale of lottery tickets is constitutional because commerce includes anything of monetary value and regulation includes power to prohibit
Civil Rights Cases (1883)
Holding
The civil rights acts are unconstitutional bc the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment does not apply to private individuals
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)
Holding
Civil Rights Act of 1964 is constitutional bc Congress has authority to prohibit racial discrimination under the Commerce Clause
Implication of Champion and Heart of Atlanta Motel
Police power
Used to protect the health, safety, and morality of citizens
Retained exclusively by the states
Federal Police Power (?)
Seems very similar
Congress has authority to prohibit in order to protect the health, safety, and morality of citizens
Can only do these things under the Commerce Clause
If it crosses state lines
Regulation of interstate commerce
Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)
Holding
State law regulation use of harbor pilots is constitutional bc Congress has chosen not to exercise its authority
Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)
Implication
Legal doctrine called the “Dormant Commerce Clause”- if congress does not act then state may pass legislation, only for commerce clause
Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Arizona (1945)
Holding
State law regulating length of trains is unconstitutional because it substantially disrupts the free flow of interstate commerce
Granholm v. Heald (2005)
Holding
State law regulating out of state wine shipments is unconstitutional because it places a discriiminatory burden on interstate commerce / non uniform burden on interstate commerce
National Fed of Ind. Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Holding
The ACA is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but it is constitutional under Congress’s Tax and Spend authority because of John Roberts.
