atlanta motel v united states

atlanta motel v united states - This law differs from the...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Will Boas Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States The appellant, the owner and operator of the Heart of Atlanta Motel located in downtown Atlanta, brought the case to court contending that Congress in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exceeds its power to regulate commerce under Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. Prior to the Act being passed, the motel refused to rent rooms to Negroes, and it intended to continue to do so. Does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 comply with the United States Constitution? The court ruled that Congress could regulate local incidents of commerce under the Commerce Clause, thus the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was deemed constitutional.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: This law differs from the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in that it is limited to “enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people.” Because the development of commerce has increased the volume and changed the flow of goods, putting an increased importance on travel, inhibiting travel today would but a much larger negative impact on the nation’s economy than in the past. According to United States v. Darby, Congress has the power to not only regulate commerce, but also those activities intrastate that affect interstate commerce....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/03/2011 for the course POL 142 taught by Professor Jones during the Fall '08 term at Miami University.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online