This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Supreme Court Cases: GOV 357 Exam I I I The New Federalism Case Date Description Wickard v. Filburn 1942 Production quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act were constitutionally applied to agricultural production that was consumed purely intrastate, because its effect upon interstate commerce placed it within the power of Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause. Southern District of Ohio reversed. **under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government. United States v. Lopez 1995 Possession of a gun near school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. A law prohibiting guns near schools is a criminal statute that does not relate to commerce or any sort of economic activity. ** 1 st time since the New Deal that the Supreme Court had set limits to Congress power via the Commcerce Clause and the US constitution United States v Morrison 2000 The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 13981, is unconstitutional as exceeding congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. ** This held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution-- The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Gonzalez v. Raich 2005 Congress may ban the use of marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes **Under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution , the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes. Election LawRooted in Baker v Carr: Redistricting is a Judicial Question McConnell v. FEC 2003 Money is property, not speech. Still, not all political speech is protected by the First Amendment from government infringement....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 06/16/2011 for the course GOV 357M taught by Professor G.j.jacobson during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.
- Spring '08