A's CON_LAW_OUTLINE__ARGUMENTS_-1

A's CON_LAW_OUTLINE__ARGUMENTS_-1 - I. Commerce Clause...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
I. Commerce Clause Standard : Substantially effects interstate commerce Plaintiff’s arguments against CC: a. law challenged in action does not substantially effect interstate commerce b/c 1. transaction is not commercial 2. effect is not substantial b. Congressional Findings 1. congressional findings do not recognize link between transaction and commerce 2. there are no congressional findings which indicates congress does not recognize link between transaction and commerce c. Law challenged in action terminates distinction between state and federal law 1. transaction has historically been under state regulation (i.e. education) 2. b/c state traditionally regulates, power should remain with state Defendants (govt.) arguments for CC a. Law challenged in action does substantially effect interstate commerce b/c: 1. even if transaction is not commercial in itself, it has an impact on economy 2. if everyone did this it would substantially effect interstate commerce (aggregate test) b. Law does not terminate distinction between state and federal law 1. even though congress refrained from regulation in the past, it is still within congress’s power to regulate 2. there are several areas in which congress formerly refrained from regulating but now does so (i.e. agriculture, labor) II. Dormant Commerce Clause Plaintiff’s argument against State Law a. State law is not even handed under pike test (burden on commerce does not relate to benefits) b. Goal [of the law challenged] is protectionist b/c: 1. discriminating against out of state products based solely on origin c. State could have used less burdensome alternative States argument for the law: a. Law is even handed under Pike Test b. Goal of the law is legitimate local interest 1. Law is not protectionist b/c: 2. Local subjects are best regulated by state c. Effects on commerce are incidental not intended d. Benefit to commerce outweighs the burden
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
III. Preemption Govt. argument for preemption: a. federal law or act expressly preempts state law 1. language of statute states “field is preempted” or “partially preempted” b. Fed law implicitly intends to preempt state law b/c of the nature of Fed Goal
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 11/14/2010 for the course LAW 760 taught by Professor Goldstein during the Spring '09 term at Roger Williams.

Page1 / 5

A's CON_LAW_OUTLINE__ARGUMENTS_-1 - I. 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