Relations between federal and state governments Flashcards
Supremacy clause rule:
- if a conflict exists inter Fed and State law the Federal always wins
Tenth Amendment and law restrictiveness
state law can be MORE RESTRICTIVE than the federal law
what does the 10th amendment cover?
- state law restrictiveness
- ^state police power
- state passing laws for health safety and wellness
- Congress’s CANNOT commandeer states to adopt a law
Is there a federal police power?
no! NO federal police power
1) The FDA puts out a regulation that meat needs to
be cooked at 350 degrees for 30 minutes to
extract all the bacteria from the meat. Oklahoma
says in Oklahoma you must cook meat at 400
degrees for 45 minutes. Can Oklahoma pass such
a law?
yes because they are making the regulation more restrictive in order to protect the welfare and safety of their citizens
2) California wants everyone to be a vegetarian and
wants to pass a less restrictive law than the fed. standard. Can they do so?
No. can only make it more restrictive
Commandeer rule
federal gov/Congress CANNOT REQUIRE a state to make a law
but MAY regulate states on the same terms as private actors)
How to tell if Fed. action is NOT violating a State’s 10th am. rights
If Fed Action is:
(1) a direct regulation,
(2) that is generally applicable, and (3) does not commandeer (force the state to pass a law) > then it is constitutional and NOT violating the 10th amendment
Dormant Commerce Clause rule
state Law regulating business CANNOT discriminate against out-of-state businesses
Examples of the dormant commerce clause
Dormant Commerce Clause:
oState of Florida passing a law regulating how many fish can be caught and sold in the commercial fishing business
^this law would trigger the dormant commerce clause quia the Florida law is extending to the entire commercial fishing business, not just Florida fisheries
What standard of review do we apply when a State law is discriminatory against out of state businesses on its face?
strict scrutiny applies
strict scrutiny standard
state must have a compelling government interest that the law is serving
AND
law must be narrowly tailored to suit the needs of the people
What about when the state law is discriminatory not on its face, but in its effect?
- the intermediate scrutiny applies
- the burden on Commerce should not be excessive
intermediate scrutiny
gov must show an important interest
AND
that the law/means of supporting that interest is substantially related to that interest
Market Participant Exception
- if the state is a market participant, ie: st controls the entire industry, then the state MAY discriminate