Intended to make the US a common market o Supreme court has greatly expanded

Intended to make the us a common market o supreme

This preview shows page 16 - 19 out of 53 pages.

Intended to make the US a common market o Supreme court has greatly expanded the reach of the Commerce Clause over the years Can regulate commerce that actually crossed state lines (originally), commerce that involved instrumentalities of interstate commerce such as rivers/railroads/telephone systems (originally), and commerce that occurred entirely within the border of a single state so long as the commercial activity had “any
Image of page 16
appreciable effect” on interstate or foreign commerce (after 1930’s) States can pass commerce laws as long as they do not conflict with any federal regulations already in place—sometimes causes friction or businesses have to pass to regulations that are inconsistent with one another o Gonzales v. Raich (2005) Cali allows medicinal marijuana Question was whether the power vested in Congress includes power to prohibit cultivation and use of marijuana Raich & Monson are treated with marijuana under “Compassionate Use” act Monson cultivates her own- federal agents raided her home and destroyed her plants then DEA said no possessing/obtaining/manufacturing for personal medical use District courts agreed with DEA Ninth circuit reversed Attorney General appealed Raich & Monson say Congress exceeded their power Supreme court says they acted in their power This was verified by Wickard case Appellate court remanded and original decision was kept Wickard v. Filburn (1942) Congress was attempting to help farmers by keeping wheat prices from falling too far by limiting production Filburn wanted to grow his wheat for himself, they said no exceptions or aggregate effect would occur “even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce” o McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans (1980) Question was whether NOLA real estate firms had violated anti- trust laws by entering into price fixing contracts Local law said no they’re fine Supreme court said no this is a federal case b/c significant amounts of money lent by local banks to finance real estate come from out of state banks and most of the mortgages taken by the local banks were physically traded to them by financial institutions in other states
Image of page 17
Image of page 18
Image of page 19

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 53 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture