*** I heard a story on NPR that focused on Mad-About-Milk’s concerns. I do not believe a lawsuit was ever filed, but I remembered the facts because I knew they would work well with a commerce clause scenario.5-10
Chapter 05 - Constitutional Principles5.This case was a Commerce Clause case. The challenge was not successful; Vermont was allowed to enforce its labeling statute. Vermont's statute does not require all lamps, wherever distributed, to feature the label. Choosing whether to sell in Vermont is an economic choice manufacturers must make. Requiring manufacturers to include accurate factual information on thelabel is rationally related to the state's goal of protecting human health and environment from mercury poisoning.6.The court agreed with Smith. The court found that the defendant’s activities were intrastateand noncommercial. Subsequently, the activities could not be subject to regulation under theCommerce Clause. It did not matter that some of Smith’s supplies, such as photo paper, hadcrossed state lines.7.Michigan won. The U.S. Supreme court ruled that Michigan's imposition of a flat $100 annualfee on trucks engaging in intrastate commercial hauling was a valid exercise of state's policepower, which did not violate dormant Commerce Clause. The court pointed out that the feewas imposed only upon intrastate transactions, did not facially discriminate against interstateor out-of-state activities or enterprises, was applied evenhandedly to all carriers makingdomestic journeys, and did not reflect effort to tax activity taking place outside of Michigan.8.The court ruled that OSHA requirements did not preempt amendments to state statutes barringproperty owners from prohibiting storage of firearms in locked vehicles on their property. OSHA has not recognized storage of firearms in locked vehicles as a hazard. State laws of general applicability do not conflict with OSHA standards and that regulate conduct of workers and non-workers alike are generally not preempted under OSHA.9.The court upheld the law. It was not an unconstitutional restriction of Pruett’s right to freespeech. The court applied the Central Hudson test. The government had a substantial interestin diminishing the risk of harm to police officers that could be caused by bondsmen “tippingoff” people with outstanding arrest warrants, the rule advanced a county bail bond board'sinterest in preventing defendants from fleeing, and the rule reached no further than necessaryto accomplish its goal.10.Indiana’s highest court sided with the police. The Court ruled that warrantless searches ofHollowell's person and his truck, pursuant to which marijuana and crack cocaine were found,were permissible as searches incident to a lawful arrest, as officer had probable cause to arrestdefendant when he told her that he was driving with a suspended license An arresting officermay conduct a warrantless search of the arrestee's person and the area within his immediatecontrol.5-11
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 11 pages?
Sula, United States Congress, Interstate Commerce, constitutional principles