Fact Pattern with Federal Statute Regulating State Activity Commerce Clause

Fact Pattern with Federal Statute Regulating State Activity Commerce Clause

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Fact Pattern with Federal Statute Regulating State Activity Commerce Clause Does Congress have the power to regulate in this area? o Art. 1 §8 Assuming area= commerce Gibbons v. Ogden has defined commerce to mean commercial intercourse, broadening the definition of commerce. From U.S. v. Lopez three categories of activity fall within the scope of the commerce clause: state activity that affects the channels or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. The most testable area is substantially affects. Courts give Congress deference in this area The Court must determine whether a rational basis existed for Congress’ conclusion that the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce. (Katzenbach) Courts look to the: o Nature of the activity, o Jurisdictional hook/nexus o Legislative findings Are there any external limits on Congress’ ability to regulate in this area? Look to 10 th Amendment Is this power reserved to the states, specifically does this fall under the state’s police power? Make sure the federal government is not compelling the Congress may exercise not only its enumerated powers, but it may do all things necessary and proper, useful and convenient to carryout the enumerated powers. (McCulloch v. Maryland) if only interstate effect is based on a Congressional or legislative findings this is not dispositive to satisfy substantially affects test (Lopez) Look out for a purely intrastrate activity that, taken in the aggregate, can substantially affect commerce. (Wickard v. Filburn and Perez) This does not apply to non-economic activity/crime (Morrison, Lopez) Katzenbach= jurisdictional hook Schecter Poultry-purely intrastate activity that does not affect commerce, too local the police power is the states’ general power to act for the health, safety and welfare of their citizens. Garcia court rejected a rule of state immunity from federal regulation based on whether the particular function is traditional, as was used in National Cities 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
state to pass or enact a federal law or regulation (New York v U.S.) Make sure that the federal government is not using state officials or state resources to administer federal law or regulations (Printz v. U.S.) Is the state being sued by a private individual for damages? 11 th Amendment limitation Has the state consented to be sued or has Congress manifested an intent to abrogate this immunity? (Seminole Tribe) Has Congress delegated this power to another branch or consented to state regulation in this area? Is this a commerce clause question or a
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/15/2008 for the course LAW 1040 taught by Professor Barret during the Fall '07 term at St. Johns Duplicate.

Page1 / 8

Fact Pattern with Federal Statute Regulating State Activity Commerce Clause

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online