Exam 1 Study Deck Flashcards
To study for exam 1 (27 cards)
What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the term used to describe the Court’s ability to review and determine the constitutionality of an act of another branch of government. This sets the Court up to have a ‘check’ on the other branches of government.
What is the Political Questions Doctrine (PQD)?
The PQD says that federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. The PQD looks to ensure the Courts stay apolitical.
What is the Necessary and Proper Clause and its relation to State Sovereignty?
The Necessary and Proper Clause says that Congress has the power to make laws that are “necessary and proper” to function. This clause allows for the Fed. Gov’t’s power to fluctuate, and it can occasionally infringe on what are typically state rights. The 10th Amendment of the Con. gives powers not delegated to the Federal Gov’t in the Con. to the states or the people.
What is the Commerce Clause?
The commerce clause grants Congress the authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Indian Tribes.
Inspired by Federalist 22 - supppress the “interfering and un-neighborly regulations of some States”
How has the Court dealt w/ questions about the Commerce Clause in the pre-New Deal Era? 4 - 2 are the most important
The Commerce Clause pre-New Deal could be applied using 4 different tests:
1: Indirect vs. direct effects test - The commerce power only extends congressional oversight to those activities that have direct effect upon interstate commerce; Under the D vs ID test, Congress can only regulate activities that have a D effect upon interstate commerce. If an activity has only an ID effect on interstate commerce, Congress cannot regulate it.
2: Substantial Economic Effects Test - Emphasizes the practical physical or economic effects of the regulated intrastate activities on interstate commerce; Congress can only regulate anything that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce
3: Stream of Commerce Test - Some local activities could be regulated by Congress because they could be viewed as themselves “in” commerce or as an integral part of the “current of commerce”; Congress can even regulate local activity, if that activity is integral to the “current of commerce”
4: National Police Power - Congress has the responsibility to provide a safe, free, uninteruppted flow of commerce between states, and with this has the autority to legislate on a swath of issues not commonly seen as commercial, but which vitally affect the national safety and welfare.
How has the Court dealt w/ questions about the Commerce Clause in the New Deal Era?
Post New Deal, the Commerce Clause was interpreted ONLY using the Substantial Economic Effects Test. This means Congress can regulate anything that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
How has the Court dealt w/ questions about the Commerce Clause in the Modern Era?
The Modern Era of the Commerce Clause established new guidelines under the Substantial Economic Effects Test with three components. Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce extended to 1 - Channels of interstate commerce, 2 - Instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and 3 - Activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce.
How has the Court dealt with questions about the 10th Amendment and State Sovereignty?
The Court says that states are not private parties, and so Congressional authority that might otherwise be permissible under Art. 1 may be invalid towards states because of federalism based immunity.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) JR
Topic: Judicial Review
Rule: 1st case to establish the court’s ability to practice judicial review
Context: 1st case to strike down an act by another branch of government
Cooper v. A-aron 1958
Topic: Judicial Review
Rule: SC rulings are the law of the land
Context: Arkansas refusing to comply with desegregation - ignoring a previous ruling by SC
Baker v. Carr (Redistricting) 1962
Topic: Judicial Review
Rule: Opened up the Court’s judicial review abilities by ruling that state redistricting can be ruled on by the courts
Context: TN redistricting case that questioned the courts ability to review state redistricting because of the PQD
PQD - Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Topic: PQD
Rule: In the opinion of MvM, CJ Marshall says court should avoid ‘irksome’ and ‘delicate’ matters; anticipates the modern PQD and the two prongs of the Textual and Prudential standards
Nixon v. U.S. (1993)
Topic: PQD
Rule: Textual standard looks to the constitution to see if the issue at hand is to be dealt with by another political dept.
Context: Nixon case demonstrates this in action - impeachment is to be tried by the Senate; therefore, it’s not up to the Court to decide how the Senate conducts impeachment trials
PQD - Baker v. Carr (1962)
Topic: PQD
Rule: The Prudential standard has three varieties: (1) determine whether there is a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving an issue (2) determine if there are issues w/ enforcement or other institutional difficulties (3) determine if the case will endanger the Court’s legitimacy.
Context: The opinion of Baker v. Carr is where the Court expanded on the modern PQD and applied the 1st variety of the PQD.
Bad Banks - McCulloch v. Maryland
Topic: N+P Clause/State Sovereignty (10th Am)
Rule: The court gives deference to Congress to say what is “necessary and proper” - liberal interpretation of the N+P clause compared to what Maryland argued (“necessary” means absolutely necessary)
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
Topic: N+P Clause/State Sovereignty (10th Am)
Rule: State’s cannot claim to retain a power that they never had in the first place, such as regulating the term of office for federal officials.
Context: The state of AR passed an amendment to its state constitution that set term limits for its members of Congress - AR SC ruled this violated the U.S. Con.
Stream of Commerce Cases:
Name: Swift & Co. v. U.S. (1905)
Context: Federal regulation of stock yards was challenged as exceeding congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce
Rule: Opinion: The cattle in the yard may be intrastate in nature, yet; The nature of a stockyard itself is as a commercial activity that is designed to be interstate; Thus stockyards are within the “stream of commerce” which Congress can regulate form start to finish; HOLDING: Federal regulation of stockyards is constitutional
Topic: Commerce Clause (Pre-New Deal)
National Police Power Cases:
- Champion v. Ames (1903); Congress can regulate the sale of lottery tickets
- Hipolite Egg Co. v. U.S. (1911); Congress can regulate products that have already passed through interstate commerce
- Hoke v. U.S. (1913); Congress can regulate the transportation of women in interstate commerce for immoral purposes
Champion and Hoke both have obvious moral components, and Hipolite is concerned with food safety; These cases were heard and allowed because they were concerned with the general welfare, but likely they wouldn’t be argued today
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Co. (1937)
Topic: Commerce Clause
Rule: The test used to determine commerce clause cases from here on out will be decided using the Substantial Economic Effects Test
Context: Congress regulates labor standards w/ the NRLA under the Commerce clause - court affirms this use of commerce clause authority and says that since J&L have subsidiaries across the nation, this can be considered regulation of interstate commerce because it has a substantial economic effect
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Topic: Commerce Clause
Rule: Congress can regulate anything that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, including the decision not to participate in interstate commerce; one of the biggest expansions of Congressional Power under the Commerce Clause
Context: Wickard grew more wheat than he was allotted under the quota system - sold his quota and used his extra wheat for his own purposes on his own farm
Perez v. U.S. (1971)
Topic: Commerce Clause
Rule: The court comes up with a “class of activities” that can be regulated by Congress, even if they are local activities, because the activities are part of interstate commerce
Context: Outlaws loan sharking under the commerce clause, among other activities
U.S. v Lopez 1995
Topic: Commerce Clause
Rule: Reformed the courts understanding of the Commerce Clause and Congress’ regulatory authority, outlining the three new categories which Congress can regulate. This case only could slightly relate to the newly set out third component of the Commerce Clause.
Context: Texas Gun case that challenged the Gun Free School Zone Act. GFSZA was deemed unconstitutional under the understanding that Guns in school have little, if anything, to do with commerce; First time SC said no to a case about commerce clause authority - shocking result
Gonzalez v. Raich (2005)
Topic: Commerce Clause
Rule: Gonzalez case showed that Congress can regulate local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce (maybe perez). Also demonstrated that Congress could regulate intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial” - in this case, homegrown and used weed. Connects to the third component of the new understanding of the Commerce Clause.
NFIB v Sebelius (2012)
Topic: Commerce Clause
Rule: Case demonstrates the limits put on the Commerce Clause - it was decided that while Congress can regulate any activities that have a substantial economic effect, it cannot compel such activities or participation. Logic is that if this were allowed, Congress could compel the purchase of nearly anything. Relates to the third component of the modern understanding of the Commerce Clause.
Context: Case challenging Obamacare
