malamud con law fall

7/21/2019 Malamud Con Law Fall

1/76

Constitutional Law Thematic Outline Malamud Fall 2003

Constitutional Law Thematic Outline

Prof. Malamud

[email protected]

Table of Contents:

I. Judicial Review...................................................................................................................................6A. Questions and ssues fo! Conside!ation......................................................................................................."

#. Questions..............................................................................................................................................................."2. $ustifications fo! $udicial %e&iew........................................................................................................................."3. $udicial %e&iew and Le'itimac( Casey............................................................................................................."

). Constitutional nte!*!etation........................................................................................................................+i. $udicial ,u*!emac( &s. -e*a!tmentalism................................................................................................+

#. $udicial ,u*!emac(Marbury v. Madison /.,. #031.......................................................................................+2. -iffuse $u!isdiction Theo!ies -e*a!tmentalism1.................................................................................................+3. Methods of Constitutional nte!*!etation..............................................................................................................+

ii. o*ula! Constitutionalism.......................................................................................................................+#. Constitutional law as a fo!m of customa!( law.....................................................................................................+

2. $udicial ,u*!emac(...............................................................................................................................................+3. !ocess of Amendment........................................................................................................................................... Cultu!al 45*e!iences.............................................................................................................................................6. The Case7in7oint Dred Scott v. Sandford /.,. #6+1......................................................................................

C. $udicial %e&iew of Con'!essional Actions...................................................................................................#. The !ecedent fo! $udicial %e&iew........................................................................................................................2. $udicial %e&iew and the Con'!ess8 4nume!ated owe!s.......................................................................................3. $udicial %e&iew in Class Le'islation ,t!ict ,c!utin(1..........................................................................................9. $udicial %e&iew of ,tate and Fede!al Le'islation unde! the 6 owe!.................................................................9

-. $udicial %e&iew of ,tate Actions......................................................................................................... ......#0#. Fede!al ,u*!emac( o&e! ,tate Cou!ts.................................................................................................................#02. $udicial %e&iew of the olice owe! see ,ubstanti&e -ue !ocess1.................................................................#0

4. $udicial %e&iew of 45ecuti&e Actions........................................................................................................##

#. $udicial %e&iew of 45ecuti&e Actions.................................................................................................................##2. The Steel Seizure Case/.,. #9621 ,t!on' $udicial %e&iew............................................................................##3. Th!ee Cate'o!ies of !esidential Autho!it( $. $ac;son8s Concu!!ence.............................................................##. Cautiona!(


2/76


C. $udicial )!anch..........................................................................................................................................#"#. $u!isdiction of the ,u*!eme Cou!t Marbury v. Madison /.,. #031..............................................................#"2. Geor!ia v. Stanton /.,. #"+1 olitical Question -oct!ine...........................................................................#"3. Constitution nte!*!etation see ,ection :)i11.................................................................................................#"

III. Federalism....................................................................................................................................16A. Fede!al ,u*!emac(....................................................................................................................................#"

#. McCulloch v. Maryland /.,. ##91...................................................................................................................#"

2. The Alien Act of #+9.........................................................................................................................................#"3. !i&ate %i'hts?.................................................................................................................................22. To !ese!&e the ,*i!it and Fo!m of o*ula! Do&e!nment...................................................................................23

6. Fundamental %i'hts.............................................................................................................................................23". o*ula! Constitutionalism.................................................................................................................................23

IV. Constitutional Polity.....................................................................................................................2F. ,la&e!( in the /.,......................................................................................................................................23

#. Thu!'ood Ma!shallE'eflections on the (icentennial of the nited States Constitution #9+1.........................232. Feh!enbache!E The ,la&e oldin' %e*ublic 200#1............................................................................................233. Da!!isonian *oint of &iew....................................................................................................................................23. F!ede!ic; -ou'lasE >The Constitution of the /.,.: s it !o7,la&e!( o! Anti7,la&e!(? #"01.........................236. The Constitution and its *!o7sla&e!( o! anti7sla&e!(1 slant................................................................................23". The )ntelope /.,. #261 ,la&es as *!o*e!t(...................................................................................................2+. Dred Scott v. Sandford /.,. #6+1.....................................................................................................................2

D.


3/76


V. Con!ressional Powers......................................................................................................................2"A. Ta5in' and ,*endin' owe!......................................................................................................................2+

#. nited States v. (utler /.,. #93"1 The owe! to Ta5 and ,*end...................................................................2+2. -istinction bt a Ta5 and a enalt(......................................................................................................................2+3. South Da%ota v. Dole /.,. #9+1 ,*endin' owe! as a %e'ulato!( Tool.......................................................2+. Fede!alism and the ,*endin' owe!...................................................................................................................2+

). T!eat( owe!............................................................................................................................................. 2#. T!eat( owe! as an Au'mente! of Con'!ess8 owe!s.........................................................................................22. T!eat( owe! is not a Dua!anteed Means of Ci!cum&entin' the Constitution....................................................2

C. Comme!ce owe!...................................................................................................................................... 2i. %e'ulation of the nte!state 4conom(...................................................................................................2

#. ,u*!emac( Clause...............................................................................................................................................22. Comme!ce Clause...............................................................................................................................................23. The ,tates8 >olice owe!s? as a Const!aint on the


4/76


VIII. 1$t%#mendment & Individual (i)erties and *ue Process.......................................................$1A. !i&ile'es and mmunities......................................................................................................................... #

#. The Slau!hter,House Cases /.,. #+31


5/76


C. The ,us*ect Classification in 4=ual !otection $u!is*!udence..................................................................."2#. The )asic %ules of 4=ual !otection $u!is*!udence..........................................................................................."22. F!om -ue !ocess to 4=ual !otection %ationalit( %e&iew............................................................................"23. @hat is a classification ,ocial and Le'al Const!uctions................................................................................"2. Colo!blind !inci*le &s. Anti7subo!dination !inci*le........................................................................................"36. O!i'ins of the ,us*ect Classification -oct!ine *ovin!andKorematsu..........................................................."3". $ustifications fo! the ,us*ect Classification -oct!ine........................................................................................."3+. @hat is a >%ace7-e*endent? -ecision.............................................................................................................."

. -is*a!ate m*act and 4=ual !otection..............................................................................................................."9. %acial *!ofilin'...................................................................................................................................................."6

-. A**lication of the Le&els of ,c!utin( in 4=ual !otection $u!is*!udence..................................................""i. ,t!ict ,c!utin(E Affi!mati&e Action and 4liminatin' @ealth -is*a!ities................................................""

#. City of 'ichmond v. 1.). Croson /.,. #991 Affi!mati&e Action at the Local Le&el......................................""2. Metro (roadcastin! v. CC /.,. #9901............................................................................................................."+3. )darand Constructors v. &ena /.,. #9961 Affi!mati&e Action at the Fede!al Le&el....................................."+. Affi!mati&e Action and Anti7anti7disc!imination................................................................................................"+

ii. ,t!ict ,c!utin(E Affi!mati&e Action and i'he! 4ducation....................................................................."#. $ustifications fo! a %acial !efe!ence %ules........................................................................................................"2. 'e!ents of the niversity of California v. (a%%e /.,. #9+1............................................................................."3. Grutter v. (ollin!er /.,. 20031.........................................................................................................................."9. Gratz v. (ollin!er /.,. 20031............................................................................................................................"9

6. @hat is di&e!sit(................................................................................................................................................+0". Com*ellin' nte!est and


6/76


7/76


B. Constitutional Interpretation

i. Judicial &upre%acy vs. 'epart%entalis%

# $udicial ,u*!emac(Marbury v. Madison /.,. #031

Ma!shall8s: >it is em*haticall( win the *!o&ince of the Kudicia!( to dete!mine what the law is?:

o #1 na!!ow !eadin' the cou!t dete!mines statuto!( const!uction

o 21 b!oad !eadin' the Cou!t has the dut( to dete!mine the constitutionalit( of a statute

Asse!ts the !ole of the fede!al Kudicia!( as the *a!amount dete!mine! of constitutional const!uction

i.e.E e5*e!tiseE finalit(E inde*endenceE !eal cont!o&e!sies &s. abst!action in the le'islati&e *!ocess1

. -iffuse $u!isdiction Theo!ies -e*a!tmentalism1

All acto!s win the fede!al *la(in' field ha&e a !ole in the inte!*!etation of constitutionalismI all act in

the decision of whethe! the!e is a conflict bt the statuto!( const!uction and the constitution

$ac;son8s Heto Messa'e decla!ed autho!it( of Con'!ess45ecuti&e to inte!*!et the Constitution and

to be 'uided b( thei! own inte!*!etations it is win the *!o&ince of the *olitical b!anches to

dete!mine what is necessa!( and *!o*e!

Geor!ia v. Stanton /.,. #"+1 Cou!t abstains f!om the case on the basis of the political (uestion

doctrine the dest!uction of state so&e!ei'nt( du!in' %econst!uction was at issue1 nte!*!etation of the Comme!ce Clause:

o $. ,oute! su''ests that the *owe! to inte!*!et the Comme!ce Clause is in the hands of Con'!essI

howe&e!E much of the Comme!ce Clause Ku!is*!udence has been Kudiciall( c!eated

@hat is the !ole of the ,tates

6. Methods of Constitutional nte!*!etation

,i5 sou!ces inMcCulloch and(ro#nhow a!e these balances and wei'hed1:

o Te5t

o Theo!( and st!uctu!e of a constitutional 'o&e!nment meant to su!&i&e and ada*t1

o !udentialism inte!*!etin' the Constitution in o!de! to 'et the best !esults1

o isto!( su!!oundin' the ado*tion of the te5t

o !ecedent dis*ositi&e o! onl( one facto! amon' man(1

o ,ocial science

ii. Popular Constitutionalis%

# Constitutional law as a fo!m of customa!( law

4&olution of the inte!*!etation of the Constitution has been !ef!acted th!ou'h its te5t o&e! timeI it is a

*olitical tool that has been mani*ulated th!ou'h its institutional acto!s and b( the *o*ulous

o )ra%er foundin' was mo!e *o*ula! democ!atic elites we!e not e5clusi&el( in cont!ol1 than

has *!e&iousl( been thou'htI shift to the cou!ts was an attem*t to *ut cont!ol into an elite bod(I

ideas and mechanisms fo! non7democ!ac( we!e *!ese!&ed o&e! time unde! chan'in' cultu!al andsocial institutionsI Kudicial su*!emac( as a conce*t !ests on the idea of finalit( in inte!*!etation

Mo!e *lu!alist !athe! than *ublic choice

". $udicial ,u*!emac(

@hat eme!'es out of the idea of Kudicial su*!emac( is twofold: accounta*ility and independence

must c!eate an inde*endent Kudicia!( that is accountable and inde*endent1

o 4u!o*ean constitutionalism has sol&ed this b( se*a!atin' constitutional law f!om !e'ula! lawE

sta''e!in' the a**ointment of Kud'es and ma;in' constitutions mo!e easil( amendable

o $udicial su*!emac( is a *acif(in' de&ice: it *!e&ents *o*ula! inte!*!etation and a**lication of the

a'e + of +"


8/76


constitution in wa(s that would mo!e !eflect the chan'in' natu!e of societ(

+. !ocess of Amendment

small and !i**l(? can ha&e an immediate effect on

indi&iduals and '!ou*sE but the !eal effect is that it *e!&ades the whole s(stem

"adison wanted to find wa(s to limit !eso!t to *o*ula! cont!ol the institutional st!uctu!e of the

cent!aliGed 'o&e!nment was com*licated to slow down the *olitical *!ocess !ationalism *!e&ails1IKudicial !e&iew is a means of aidin' this conce*t

9. The Case7in7oint Dred Scott v. Sandford /.,. #6+1

t is im*!o*e! fo! a chan'e in *ublic o*inionE in !elation to blac;sE in the /.,. o! the >ci&iliGed?

nations of 4u!o*e to induce the Cou!t to 'i&e the wo!ds of the Constitution a mo!e libe!alconst!uction than the( we!e intended to bea! when the inst!ument was f!amed and ado*tedI woamendment it must be const!ued as it was unde!stood at the time it was ado*ted

C. Judicial Review of Congressional Actions

# The !ecedent fo! $udicial %e&iew

the*eo*le? who dele'ate limited autho!it( th!ou'h constitutional means

Marbury v. Madison /.,. #031

o $udicial !e&iew of the Le'islatu!e: Kudicia!( must 'ua!d a'ainst a le'islatu!e that ma( alte! the

w!ittenE fundamental laws will(7nill(I in conflicts bt statutes and the ConstitutionE the cou!tsshould be 'uided b( the Constitution bc it is su*e!io! to an( o!dina!( act of the le'islatu!e

o $udicial !e&iew can function in two wa(s:

#1 to *!otect a'ainst maKo!ita!ian *olitics

21 to counte! *ublic laGiness to *!otest a'ainst low7th!eshold issues1

Stuart v. *aird /.,. #031

o ,i'nificance: Ma!shall Cou!t ac=uiesced to the *olitical !ealit( of %e*ublican cont!ol of the

fede!al 'o&e!nmentI >t!ansition in democ!ac(? cou!ts in fled'lin' !e*ublics must acce*t the

influence of *olitics to !emain &iable until Kudicial inde*endence can be established as an on'oin'customI anothe! inte!*!etation is that cou!ts a!e continuall( influenced b( *olitical *!essu!e

McCulloch v. Maryland /.,. ##91o ,i'nificance: decla!es that the Kudicial b!anch can !e&iew acts of Con'!ess that ma( 'o be(ond

constitutional *owe!s unde! the *eo*le?I it is not fo! the Cou!t to !e&iew in matte!s of social and economic

le'islationE the Con'!ess should be 'i&en defe!ence cf.. cu!!ent ,u*!eme Cou!t1

a'e of +"


9/76


o Carolene Products &i!tual abdication of Kudicial !e&iew fo! social and economic le'islation

mi'ht be unde!stood unde! the theo!( of inte!est '!ou* *lu!alism

,u''ests that the *ublic inte!est is dete!mined b( the st!en'th of inte!est '!ou* lobb(in'I the

onl( chec; is Kudicial !e&iew based on the !ationalit( of the le'islation

o (ope5 #9961 andorrison20001 the le&el of !e&iew seems to fluctuate

The =uestion becomes what is the actual effect of le'islati&e findin's on Con'!ess and

whethe! the( can be *!obati&e the e&idence *!o&ided is not ad&e!sati&el( tested1 nMorrisonE the Cou!t !eKects the e5tensi&e findin's as insufficient is this hei'htened

sc!utin( o! !ationalit( !e&iewE which is su**osed to be used in such cases

ow ti'ht of a !est!aint does this new Ku!is*!udence *ut onto Con'!ess

o e!ha*s the %ehn=uist Cou!t is si'nalin' that con'!essional le'islation on issues of economic and

social le'islation Carolene &roducts1 is no lon'e! *!esum*ti&el( constitutional

This would be consistent wthe Cou!t8s &iew that Con'!ess8 !ole should be mo!e limited and

that the e5*ansi&e &iew of the Comme!ce Clause ta;en du!in' c!isis sn be the no!m

$udicial %e&iew unde! the Ta5in' and ,*endin' Clause:

o Sonzins%y v. nited States /.,. #93+1 the cou!ts dn ha&e the com*etenc( to in=ui!e into the

hidden moti&es of Con'!ess to e5e!cise a constitutionall( 'i&en *owe!##. $udicial %e&iew in Class Le'islation ,t!ict ,c!utin(1

Cooper v. #aron the Cou!t was willin' to delibe!ate intensel( on the issues !ace1E illust!atin' that

the Cou!tE in a c!unchE can sc!utiniGe st!on'l( and that the Cou!t is dese!&ed of !es*ect in its Kud'ment

7as%in!ton v. *avis decided u*on the assum*tion that the Cou!t was not *!e*a!ed to dete!mine the

constitutional im*lications of dis*a!ate im*act as a !ationale fo! le'islationI this was e5tended to othe!classificationsE such as !eli'ious e5*!ession (oerne1 and the *h(sicall( disabled Garrett1

o (oerne Cou!t dn !e=ui!e e5tensi&e b!iefin' and dn conside! the dissents callin' fo! the

!econside!ation of SmithI the Cou!t used this as a >teachin'? case fo! Con'!ess on the !ole ofKudicial !e&iewI it is also the closest that Con'!ess came to o&e!tu!nin' the Cou!t

o Garrett the !eKection of >accommodation? in the A-AE unde! the !ationalit( !e&iewE is a;in to

the !eKection of dis*a!ate im*act in Washin!ton v. DavisI this should be cont!asted wthe FMLAEwhich 'a&e an >entitlement? to indi&idualsE (et *assed inte!mediate sc!utin(

Carolene Products +ootnote ,

o Fundamental !i'hts te5tual commitments and those Kudicial c!eated1 must !ecei&e st!ict sc!utin(

in o!de! to *!e&ent actual and st!uctu!al inte!&entions into *olitical debate policing process

o $udicial !e&iew is Kustified on the basis of protecting de%ocracy *!e&entin' the disto!tion and

ent!enchment of *olitical *owe! b( '!ou*sE es*eciall( fo! >disc!ete and insula!? mino!ities1

,i'nals when the Cou!t will be mo!e a''!essi&e and when it will be mo!e lenient in Kudicial

!e&iew of le'islationI it is fine fo! the mil; indust!( to win a economic windfallE but it issomethin' else if le'islation we!e to disto!t and ent!ench *owe! !elations bt '!ou*s

#2. $udicial %e&iew of ,tate and Fede!al Le'islation unde! the 6 owe! - and !(ual Protection Jurisprudence

o City of 'ichmond v. 1.). Croson /.,. #991 Local Le'islati&e Acts

-eals wabilit( of a local le'islatu!e to fashion !emedies fo! *ast !acial disc!iminationI does a

localit( ha&e an inte!est com*ellin' enou'h to use !emedies conside!ed unconstitutional

Croson su''ests that the !elationshi* of Con'!ess to 6 'i&es it a s*ecial abilit( to tailo!

!emedies desi'ned to add!ess these com*ellin' issues see)darand1

o Adarand Constructors v. Pena /.,. #9961 O&e!!ulesMetro (roadcastin!

-ecision $. O8Conno!1: 6th8s due *!ocess 'ua!antee im*oses a simila! !est!aint on the fede!al

a'e 9 of +"


10/76


11/76


#3. $udicial %e&iew of the olice owe! see ,ubstanti&e -ue !ocess1

&lessy v. er!uson /.,. #9"1

o olice owe! is not an absoluteI must be !easonable and e5tend onl( to laws enacted in 'ood faith

fo! the *!omotion of the *ublic 'ood and not fo! the o**!ession of a mino!it(I !easonableness canbe dete!mined b( !efe!ence to the standa!ds of societ(

*ochner v. "e# $or% /.,. #9061 4conomic Le'islation

o olice *owe! can !easonabl( ci!cumsc!ibe the !i'hts of both *!o*e!t( and libe!t(E but the!e is alimit to the &alid e5e!cise of the *olice *owe!

&tep 1 whethe! the le'islation is a fai!E !easonable and a**!o*!iate e5e!cise of the *olice

*owe! of the ,tateE o! is it an un!easonableE unnecessa!( and a!bit!a!( inte!fe!ence wthe !i'htof the indi&idual to *e!sonal libe!t(

&tep 3 whethe! a statute is o! is not !e*u'nant to the ConstitutionI must be dete!mined f!om

the natu!al effect of the statute when *ut into o*e!ation and not f!om the *!oclaimed *u!*ose

Fundamental %i'hts see ,ubstanti&e -ue !ocess

!. Judicial Review of !4ecutive Actions

# $udicial %e&iew of 45ecuti&e Actions

olitical acts cannot be !e&iewed b( the Cou!t no le'al !emedies1 45ecuti&e is accountable to thedemoc!atic *!ocess *a!t of the *olitical =uestion doct!ine1

Marbury v. Madison /.,. #031 le'alit( of an act b( an e5ecuti&e office! ma( sometimes be

e5aminableI distin'uishes bt e5ecuti&e de*a!tments c!eated as e5tensions of the *!esidenc( and thosethat must act in confo!mit( to acts of Con'!ess

#. The Steel Seizure Case/.,. #9621 ,t!on' $udicial %e&iew

lu!alit(: *owe! of the !esident to issue an o!de! must stem f!om eithe! an act of Con'!ess statute1

o! the Constitution i.e.E wa! *owe!sE e5ecuti&e *owe!1

o $. )lac; i'no!es im*lied e5ecuti&e *owe!I how b!oad is this *owe! in a 'i&en ci!cumstance

#6. Th!ee Cate'o!ies of !esidential Autho!it( $. $ac;son8s Concu!!ence

1 when the !esident acts *u!suant to an e5*!ess o! im*lied autho!iGation of Con'!ess the!esident *e!sonifies fede!al so&e!ei'nt( and hishe! autho!it( is at a ma5imum

3 when the !esident acts in absence of eithe! a con'!essional '!ant o! denial of autho!it(

!esident can onl( !el( on inde*endent *owe!s 5one of twili!%tof concu!!ent autho!it(1

o This middle cate'o!( is t!oublin' bc it de*ends on how much meanin' the 7udiciary is willin' to

!ead in the te5t !elatin' to the ConstitutionI im*lies that the le'islati&e histo!( can be inte!*!etedin li'ht of a subKecti&e a**!eciation of the situation and *!o&ides fo! fle5ible 'o&e!nancese*a!ation of *owe!s is fle5ibleE es*eciall( in fo!ei'n affai!s and in times of c!isisE i.e.E wa! time1

!%ergency/Pu*lic 5ecessity when Con'!ess fails to actE !esident should !ecei&e mo!e

defe!ence de*endin' on the '!a&it( of the situationI es*eciall( in catast!o*hic situations

Status 9uo8 Steel Seizure -issent1 45ecuti&e acts to maintain thestatus 9uo until Con'!ess

can actI maintainin' the status =uo means fulfillin' domestic and inte!national obli'ations

International 6*ligations sn be utiliGed so as to au'ment the *owe!s of the !esident

o


12/76


o i.e.ESteel Sei5ure Case !esident dn ha&e a mono*ol( on the wa! *owe!sI Con'!essE not the

!esidentE ma( be able to utiliGe the wa! *owe!s as an inst!ument of domestic *olic(

o i.e.E Political parties cannot a''!andiGe the *owe! a leade! of a *olitical *a!t( conce!ned wthe

abilit( of the mode!n *!esidenc( to 'i&e the office mo!e *owe! than *!e&iousl( com*!ehended1

II. &eparation of PowersA Congress

# O&e!a!chin' =uestions:

Ca*acit( of an acto! to act and unde! what ci!cumstances

@hich b!anch of 'o&e!nment is limited

Focus on st!uctu!e &e!sus a focus on !i'hts a'ainst the 'o&e!nment

,e*a!ation of owe!s affects indi&idual !i'hts *a!t of its &e!tical a**lication1I not e5clusi&el( a

ho!iGontal chec; on *owe! $. Benned( Clinton v. "e# $or%I Chatta v. nited States1

#+. ,t!uctu!al ssues &s. )asic Libe!ties

McCulloch v. Maryland /.,. ##91

o -efe!ence to Con'!ess on st!uctu!al issues &s. basic libe!ties:

45am*le of ac=uiescence at the b!oad >social cont!act? le&el le'islati&e enactment1 and at

the na!!ow >*olitical win? le&el *!a'matic &s. constitutional1

o The end must be le'itimate but Con'!ess dete!mines what is necessa!( and *!o*e!

o !es. $ac;son8s &eto de'!ee of >necessit( and *!o*e!? was be(ond Constitutional *owe!s

Fi!st the bill would '!ant fo!ei'ne!s stoc;7owne!s e5em*tion f!om ta5ation b( the ,tates

,econd ban;in' sn be outside the sco*e of the ,tates8 *owe! to ta5

Thi!d *!ese!&ation of the /nion must allow the ,tates to function unobst!ucted

#. -efe!ence unde! 6 and the ##thAmendment Garrett-issent1

Garrett -issent defe!ence to most social and economic le'islation fo! &iolation of due *!ocess o!e=ual *!otection shows !es*ect fo! the democ!atic *!ocesses and is consistent wthe basic &ision ofKudicial !e&iew afte! West Coast Hoteland Carolene &roductsI st!ict sc!utin( should onl( a**l( tothose classifications that a!e >sus*ect?E e5ce*t in cases whe!e Con'!ess is e5e!cisin' its *owe! toprotectconstitutional !i'hts

#9. The %atchetin'7u* Theo!( and the #thAmendment

Katzenbach v. Mor!an /.,. #9""1

o $. )!ennan insists that Con'!ess has *owe! onl( to add to the Cou!t8s bans on statesE but not to

subt!act f!om them c!iti=ued b( $. a!lan in his dissent see )o5 of >-isc!imination Table?1

Academic theo!ies of con'!essional *owe! unde! the %econst!uction Amendments:

o )u!t Con'!ess as a less const!ained line7d!awe! Con'!ess is mo!e institutionall( ca*able ofd!awin' a line fo! whe!e constitutional *!inci*les should be d!awnE howe&e! a!bit!a!( i.e.E*!i&ate disc!imination1I thou'h Cou!ts ha&e occasioned to d!aw a!bit!a!( lines i.e.E'oe1

o Co5 Con'!ess as a su*e!io! fact7finde! su*!emac( clause ma;es fede!al fact7findin'

*a!amount !e'a!dless of its int!insic me!it in com*a!ison to state fact7findin'

o Cohen Con'!ess as a su*e!io! !e*!esentati&e of ,tate 'o&e!nments Con'!ess8 *!esum*tions

should be mo!e bindin' it is !e*!esentati&e of the states and balances state and national inte!ests

o ,a'e! Con'!ess as the Cou!t8s Kunio! *a!tne! Con'!ess should be able to act in wa(s f!ee f!om

cou!t7s*ecific const!aints if it follows the Cou!t8s &iews on the constitutionalit( of an issue

o Ama! Con'!ess as a coe=ual inte!*!eti&e *a!tne! and !eflecto! of fundamental &alues histo!(

a'e #2 of +"


13/76


and a!chitectu!e of the # thsu''ests that Con'!ess should ha&e mo!e7than7!emedial !ole ininte!*!etin' the #thin *!otectin' fundamental !i'hts a'ainst the states

20. Le&el of ,c!utin( and Fact7findin' Crosonand Garrett

@hat %inds of findin's a!e necessa!( to sa( that we a!e !emed(in' *!i&ate disc!imination

o s it win the com*etence of a le'islatu!e to en'a'e in fact7findin' to ade=uatel( fashion a !emed(

somethin' a**!oachin' aprima facie case of !acial disc!imination adKudicati&e const!uct11

o f not E then $. ,te&ens is !i'ht to sa( that the le'islatu!e will ne&e! be able to enact affi!mati&eaction *lans im*e!&ious to st!ict sc!utin( shifts autho!it( to the cou!ts

o f soE then $. Benned( is !i'ht to sa( that the #thsn be inte!*!eted so as to !educe a ,tate8s

autho!it( to fashion !emedies fo! *ast !acial disc!imination ,tate le'islatu!es ha&e autho!it(

@hat level of e&idence is necessa!( to *!o&e *ast o! cu!!ent disc!imination

o $. ,calia su''ests it !e=ui!es the same le&el that cou!ts !el( on ad&e!sa!ial a**lication1

o $. )!e(e! !ole of e&idence in the le'islati&e *!ocess is diffe!ent than its !ole in the Kudicial

*!ocessI the two sn be confused o! conflated

+. !4ecutive Branc#

i T#e !4tent of !4ecutive Powers

# C!isis?

(laisdell 3The Minnesota Mort!a!e Moratorium Case5 /.,. #931

a'e #3 of +"


14/76


o %eco'niGed that an eme!'enc( ma( define the enume!ated *owe!s of the 'o&e!nment

i.e.E ,tate8s *olice *owe! ma( be e5e!cised to *!e&ent the immediate and lite!al enfo!cement

of cont!actual obli'ationsE tem*o!a!il(E whe!e &ital *ublic inte!est would othe!wise suffe!

23. !esidential owe! du!in' the Ci&il @a!

&rize Cases /.,. #"31

o Constitutionall( e!missible: Constitution '!ants *owe! to Con'!ess to decla!e a national o!

fo!ei'n wa!I the !esident has no *owe! to initiate o! decla!e wa!I howe&e!E Acts of #+96 and#0+ '!ant autho!it( to call the militia and use the milita!( and na&al fo!ces in c!isis

Congressional Ac(uiescence !atification of *ast actions o*e!ates to cu!e an( defect in the

!esident actin' unde! colo! of eme!'enc(I the Cou!t dn conside! its constitutionalit(

o -issent Con'!essional owe!: wa! is onl( in e5istence once decla!ed b( Con'!ess and assented

to b( the 45ecuti&eI Acts of #+96 and #0+ we!e not a *ositi&e '!ant of *owe! to the !esidentIwa! *owe! !emains wthe le'islatu!e and cannot be dele'ated to the e5ecuti&e

4manci*ation !oclamation $anua!( #E #9"31

o Lincoln asse!ted that the emanci*ation of the sla&es was necessa!( fo! the wa! effo!tI Lincoln

ne&e! asse!ted that he had the autho!it( to abolish sla&e!( alto'ethe!

o $. Cu!tis c!iticiGed the *!oclamation as an o&e!e5tension of e5ecuti&e *owe!:

%e'ulation of domestic !elations bt *eo*les is left to the ,tates

45ecuti&e dn ha&e the autho!it( to ma;e o! !e*eal lawsE onl( to e5ecute the laws if the

!esident can e5e!cise this *owe! in the name of *!ese!&in' the /nionE what othe! *owe!!ese!&ed to the ,tates o! the *eo*le ma( not be e5e!cised to >best subdue the enem(?

/nless secession was le'alE the ,tates a!e still bound b( and !etain !i'hts in the Constitution

2. 3!dAmendment !ohibition of =ua!te!in' soldie!s wo consent o! *!esc!ibed b( law

s it *lausible to !ead the Amendment as sa(in' thatE e&en du!in' wa! timeE when national e5istence

mi'ht be at sta;eE constitutional no!ms nonetheless cont!ol and that *ublic officialsE includin' the!esidentE cannot sim*l( do whate&e! the( thin; is ad&isable in o!de! to achie&e thei! 'oals

26. T!uman and the Bo!ean @a! The Steel Seizure Case /.,. #9621

Limited *owe!s: *owe! to issue an o!de! must stem f!om eithe! an act of Con'!ess o! the Constitution

o ,tatute the!e is no statute o! con'!essional act that e5*licitl( 'i&es the !esident such autho!it(E

Taft7a!tle( Act was ado*ted fo! dealin' wa >national eme!'enc(? a!isin' out of labo! dis*utesEbut Con'!ess !efused to ado*t this method of settlin' labo! dis*utes

Cla!; Concu!!ence: in the absence of action b( Con'!essE the !esident8s inde*endent *owe!

to act de*ends u*on the '!a&it( of the situation conf!ontin' the nation

o Constitution:

6th *!ohibition on ta;in's wo Kust com*ensation cannot be e5e!cised b( the !esident

since she lac;s the autho!it( to !aise !e&enueI Con'!ess can autho!iGe ta;in's

@a! *owe!s !esident dn ha&e a mono*ol( on the wa! *owe!s e&idence found in 3!d

Amendment1I '!ant of milita!( *owe! dn e5tend to autho!it( o&e! ci&ilian affai!s

45ecuti&e *owe!s *owe! to !ecommende5ecuted le'islation dn e5tend to c!eatin' laws

$. )lac; i'no!es the e5istence of im*lied e5ecuti&e *owe!

$. -ou'las yers v. nited States >the doct!ine of the se*a!ation of *owe!s was

ado*ted not to *!omote efficienc( but to *!eclude the e5e!cise of a!bit!a!( *owe! not toa&oid f!ictionE but to sa&e the *eo*le f!om autoc!ac(?

$ac;son Concu!!ence: *!actical e5*e!ience &s. !eliance on doct!ine and le'al fiction1 th!ee

cate'o!ies:

o 1 when the !esident acts *u!suant to an e5*!ess o! im*lied autho!iGation of Con'!essI

a'e # of +"


15/76


*e!sonifies fede!al so&e!ei'nt(I autho!it( is at a ma5imum

o 3 when the !esident acts in absence of eithe! a con'!essional '!ant o! denial of autho!it(I can

onl( !el( on inde*endent *owe!s zone of t#ili!htof concu!!ent autho!it(1 t!oublin' bc it ma(

de*end on7udicial inte!*!etation and a subKecti&e a**!eciation of the situation

Provides for fle4i*le governance se*a!ation of *owe!s is fle5ibleE es*eciall( in fo!ei'n

affai!s and in times of c!isisE i.e.E wa! time1

o

7 when the !esident ta;es measu!es incom*atible wthe e5*!essed o! im*lied will of Con'!essI*owe! is at its lowest ebb constitutional *owe!s minus *owe!s of Con'!ess o&e! the matte!1

Con'!ess should cont!ol utiliGation of the wa! *owe!s as an inst!ument of domestic *olic(

esitant to a''!andiGe the *owe! a leade! of a *olitical *a!t(

)!oad fo!ei'n affai!s *owe!s: -issent C$. Hinson1

o !esence of a 'lobal conflict Con'!ess *!o&ided fo! the *!o&ision of inc!eased milita!( ca*abilit(

in the @est and the acific1 cannot !ead the Constitution in isolation of 'lobal !ealities

o ast action b( *ast !esidents and ad&iso!s and afte!7the7fact action b( Con'!ess dn indicate the

!esident lac;ed autho!it(

o T!uman full( info!med Con'!ess and *!o&ided that Con'!ess could in&alidate itI su**o!ted action

b( followin' le'islati&e !e=ui!ements anti7inflation and milita!( *!ocu!ement1o Taft7a!tle( dn a**l( to this case bc of these im*e!ati&es

iv. 8ar Powers and 'ue Process Concerns

# Writ of Habeas Corpusand -etention

/- parte Merryman /.,. #"#1

o -ecision C$. Tane(1: abilit( to sus*end the w!it of habeas corpus is a *owe! &ested in Con'!ess

consistent wthe common law t!adition of e5cludin' this *owe! f!om the e5ecuti&e1

n #""E ,u*!eme Cou!t st!uc; down use of milita!( cou!ts in non7!ebel states in which

ci&ilian cou!ts we!e still o*e!atin'I what about when the wa! ended

o Lincoln8s !es*onse toMerryman


16/76


o $. $ac;son !i'ht to be f!ee f!om 'uilt7b(7!ace is an absolute that cannot be ab!o'ated b( milita!(

necessit(I so fundamental that Kudicial decision is necessa!( balance bt indi&idual !i'ht and'o&e!nmental *u!*ose1

o $. Mu!*h( no !easonable !elation to an >immediateE imminentE and im*endin'? *ublic dan'e! is

e&ident to su**o!t a !acial !est!iction wo ma!tial law e=ual *!otection st!ict sc!utin(1

%eKection of milita!( necessit(: $. $ac;son1 it would be im*!acticable to e5*ect milita!( commande!s

to act unde! the ci!cumstances of wa! as a >!easonable *e!son?I Cou!t sn disto!t the Constitution toa**!o&e all that the milita!( ma( deem e5*edient

o Hirabayashidn *!o&ide *!ecedentI the Cou!t onl( u*held use of the wa! *owe!E and nothin' else

o ,u''ests that the Cou!t dn ha&e the institutional com*etence bc the milita!( ma( !el( on

e&idence in a diffe!ent manne! than the Cou!t

9. Judicial Branc#

# $u!isdiction of the ,u*!eme Cou!t Marbury v. Madison /.,. #031

,tatuto!( and Constitutional $u!isdiction of the ,u*!eme Cou!t: =uestioned whethe! #3 of the #+9

$udicia!( Act is constitutionalI held that o!i'inal and a**ellate Ku!isdiction a!e clea!l( definedICon'!ess cannot &acillate bt the two b( an( fiat

o

s this the onl( a**!o*!iate inte!*!etation @h( is Con'!ess *!ohibited f!om addin' to the o!i'inal Ku!isdiction of the Cou!t

@hat should be the attitude towa!ds a statute enacted b( the Con'!ess of #+9

O!i'inal and A**ellate $u!isdiction A!ticle 2E *a!a. 21

o Ma;es distinction bt a**ellate and o!i'inal Ku!isdiction

Con'!ess can neithe! !est!ict no! enla!'e o!i'inal Ku!isdiction Ma!shall im*lies that a**ellate

Ku!isdiction cannot be mo&ed to o!i'inal Ku!isdiction1

o Con'!ess ma( 'i&e lowe! fede!al cou!ts concu!!ent Ku!isdiction

o >A**ellate? onl( in the sense of a7udicial hie!a!ch(E not an e5te!nal!overnmental hie!a!ch(

2+. Geor!ia v. Stanton /.,. #"+1 olitical Question -oct!ine

>olitical =uestion? not susce*tible to Kudicial !e&iew no th!eat to *!i&ate !i'hts o! *!i&ate *!o*e!t(1

Le'alit( of %econst!uction did !each the Cou!t in/- parte McCardleE in&ol&in' a claim of indi&idual

!i'hts affected b( the %econst!uction ActsI howe&e!E Con'!ess !emo&ed the Cou!t8s Ku!isdiction

2. Constitution nte!*!etation see,ection :)i11

III. +ederalis%

$. Benned( it is a mo!alethical matte! fo! a citiGen to dele'ate autho!it( to a !emote 'o&e!nmental

*owe!I local 'o&e!nment is mo!e consistent w*!otectin' one8s own libe!t( dual so&e!ei'nt(1

A +ederal &upre%acy

# McCulloch v. Maryland /.,. ##91 owe! to c!eate im*lies the *owe! to *!ese!&eE which is incom*atible wthe *owe! to dest!o(

aut#ority t#at is supre%e %ust control

o ,tates ha&e no *owe!E b( ta5ation o! othe!wiseE to !eta!dE im*edeE bu!denE o! in an( manne!

cont!olE the o*e!ations of constitutional acts of Con'!ess o! e5ecution b( the 45ecuti&e

Fede!al 'o&e!nment is >su*!eme win its s*he!e of action?

@hat if the!e is o&e!la* bt fede!al and ,tate >s*he!es of action? eithe! the ,tate o! fede!al

'o&e!nment is su*!eme o! the!e must be !eco'nition of !es*ect fo! the othe! comit(1

29. The Alien Act of #+9

a'e #" of +"


17/76


4m*owe!ed the !esident to de*o!t aliens Kud'ed as dan'e!ous to the *eace and safet( of the count!(

o !o7Alien Act a!'ument *owe! to e5clude alien f!iends was !ese!&ed to the ,tatesI Con'!ess

could onl( e5clude aliens du!in' wa!time

o Anti7Act a!'ument *owe! to cont!ol immi'!ation is an inhe!ent *owe! of the so&e!ei'n state

The constitutionalit( of the Act ne&e! came befo!e the ,u*!eme Cou!t bc the Act e5*i!ed in #00I

thou'h the issue was di!ectl( conside!ed in the Chinese /-clusion Case in #9

30. Kust !i'hts of the owne! to !eclaim his sla&e?

enns(l&ania8s A!'uments must show that its statute was constitutional unde! the Fu'iti&e

,la&e ClauseI since the Constitution is silentE enns(l&ania could ha&e a!'ued that onl( the

,tates could act to enfo!ce the Clause #0thAmendment1I o! that concu!!ent Ku!isdiction e5istsas lon' as the!e is no conflict su*!emac( would 'o to the fede!al 'o&e!nment1

Counte!a!'ument silence could mean that Con'!ess intended the!e to be no !emed(

$. i%its on +ederal Power

# The -oct!ine of


18/76


o $. )aldwin: found that slaves were an ite% of co%%erceand the !e'ulation of inte!state

comme!ce la( e5clusi&el( wCon'!essI no state can dis!u*t the comme!cial ente!*!ise that is thesla&e t!ade i.e. *assa'e th!ou'h Ohio would not manumit sla&es1 fea!ed that conside!ation of

sla&es as *e!sons o&e! *!o*e!t( would be a fatal ste* fo! the st!uctu!e of the fede!al 'o&e!nment

32. Comit( bt the ,tates and Fede!al Do&e!nment

The Fu'iti&e ,la&e Clause: &ital to the *assa'e of the Constitution bc it *!o&ided southe!n states a

'ua!antee fo! the *!ese!&ation of thei! domestic inte!ests and institutions and 'ua!d a'ainst thedoct!ines and *!inci*les *!e&alent in the non7sla&e7holdin' states self


19/76


o Fede!alism as a libe!t( *!ese!&in' doct!ine

Morrison cannot be seen as usin' fede!alism doct!ines to *!otect laisseG7fai!e economic

*olicies o! *!omote the libe!t( of cont!actE but the 'oals of decent!aliGation of decision7ma;in' and *!omotion of indi&idual libe!t( in this caseE the libe!t( to se5uall( assault1

,hould fede!alism ta;e into conside!ation the =ualit( of the libe!t( bein' *!ese!&ed i.e.E ci&il

!i'hts a!e usuall( e5em*ted f!om fede!alism conce!ns1

o

Fede!alism se!&es to *!ese!&e !e'ulato!( fle5ibilit( and the *olitical accountabilit( of the ,tates $u!isdiction o&e! non,economic acti&ities allows the ,tates to calib!ate indi&idual a**!oaches

-oes the %ehn=uist Cou!t8s distinction bt economic and non7economic acti&it( ade=uatel(

!eflect what is conside!ed as >t!aditional? a!eas of state !e'ulation

The c!isis that $. Benned( is 'ua!din' a'ainst is the !ole the fede!al 'o&e!nment in the

*olitical *!ocessI but a!e the inte!ests of the ,tates bein' bette! !e*!esented th!ou'h thefede!al s(stem than th!ou'h the local *!ocess

Fede!alism and the 4conomic nte'!ation of the Ame!ican 4conom(

o A!e the *!inci*les of fede!alism su**osed to outli&e full economic inte'!ation of the econom(

%ehn=uist Cou!t su''ests that the *!esumed bounda!ies a!e wea!in' awa(

Conce!ned that the !ealities of the 90s econom( will fu!the! e!ode that bounda!( %econst!uction Amendments chan'ed the fede!al !elationshi* the constitutional moments of

the


20/76


4&en wthe chan'es since #+9E the fundamental limitation that the constitutional scheme

im*oses on the Comme!ce Clause to *!otect the >,tates as ,tates? is one of *!ocess !athe!than one of !esult substanti&e !est!aints must find thei! basis in *!ocedu!al limitations1

Con'!essional laws ma( not inf!in'e indi&idual libe!tiesE but the!e is no !est!aint based on

state so&e!ei'nt( !e=ui!in' o! *e!mittin' Kudicial enfo!cement

3. Commandee!in' The&rintz Line of Cases

Testa v. Katz #9+1o 4stablished that Con'!ess can 'i&e ,tate cou!ts fede!al subKect7matte! Ku!isdiction and that it is

not o*tional fo! ,tate cou!t to acce*t the fede!al =uestion cou!ts a!e *assi&e1

"e# $or%*!inci*le

o Con'!ess cannot command the ,tates to im*lement le'islation fo! a fede!al !e'ulato!( *!o'!am

&rintz v. nited States /.,. #99+1

o -ecision $. ,calia1:

F!ame!s e5*licitl( chose a st!uctu!e that allows Con'!ess to !e'ulate indi&idualsE not ,tatesI

*u!*ose was to c!eate dual sovereigntyto *!otect indi&idual libe!tiesI Con'!ess sn be able toenfo!ce le'islation wo usin' fede!al !esou!ces and wo fede!al accountabilit(

o -issent $. ,te&ens1: Con'!ess ma( im*ose affi!mati&e obli'ations on e5ecuti&e and Kudicialoffice!s of the statesI this dn im*licate coe!cion of state le'islatu!es as in "e# $or%

1=t# dn im*ose !est!iction on the e5e!cise o! limit thei! sco*e of dele'ated *owe!s

Fede!al 'o&e!nment is *oliticall( !es*onsi&e to national needs and acts in the Kud'ment that

the *eo*le of each ,tate will benefitI comit( bt the states is no lon'e! the d!i&in' fo!ce ofenactin' national standa!ds and !ules

&ri!!and&rintz

o &ri!! *!esa'ed the !ule laid down in&rintz Fu'iti&e ,la&e Clause dn *oint to an( state

functiona!ies to ca!!( out its effectI it ma( be deemed an unconstitutional e5e!cise of *owe! toinsist that the states a!e bound to *!o&ide means to ca!!( out national duties1

s the nationalistic &iew of $. ,to!( bein' twisted b( $. ,calia

)lden v. Maine /.,. #9991

o -ecision $. Benned(1: ,tate cou!ts a!e not obli'ed to hea! dama'e suits b!ou'ht a'ainst the ,tate

itselfE e&en if the ,tate had indeed &iolated fede!al law

'ecision is rooted> not only in t#e 11t#> *ut in t#e conte4t of federalis%

,tate immunit( in the ,tate8s own cou!t *!o&ides >di'nit(? and >!es*ect? owed to ,tates

as >membe!s of the fede!ation?I *lena!( fede!al cont!ol of ,tate 'o&e!nment *!ocessesdeni'!ates the se*a!ate so&e!ei'nt( of the ,tates

o ow is indi&idual libe!t( 'ua!anteed when &alid !i'hts 'o un7!emedied th!ou'h state immunit(

%eci*!ocit( ma( mean that the each 'o&e!nmentE state and fede!alE empo#er citiGens fo!

when w!on's a!e committed b( the othe!E not necessa!il( that the( a!e immune fo!m*!osecution based on a claim a!isin' unde! the Ku!isdiction of the othe!

I. &lavery and +ederalis%

# The Fu'iti&e ,la&e Act of #+93

!o&ided fo! enfo!cement of the Fu'iti&e ,la&e Clause of the Constitution b( wa( of summa!(

*!ocess befo!e an( fede!al Kud'e o! state ma'ist!ateI howe&e!E the Act was &a'ue and left unclea! thee5tent of ,tate *owe! to su**lement the *!ocesses wits own *!ocedu!al o! substanti&e safe'ua!ds

Antisla&e!( law(e!s a!'ued fo! the b!oadest *ossible &iew of state *owe! sou'ht a state fo!um1

the fu'iti&e8s ad&ocate stood fo! states8 !i'hts and a'ainst e5tensions of national *owe!

a'e 20 of +"


21/76


o nte!*!etation of anti7sla&e!( statutes led to th!ee a&enues:

u!*ose of statute could be &iewed as the fu!the!ance of the natu!al !i'ht to f!eedom the!e

would be no conflict w *ositi&ist *!inci*les of law i.e. statutes on *!o*e!t( !i'hts1

u!*ose fell into a '!a( a!ea of a**lications not dete!mined b( a fai! !eadin' of the statute

*!efe!ence fo! libe!t( as one of the la!'e! *!inci*les of law

)end7o&e!7bac;wa!d *!inci*le of obli'ation to achie&e a *!o7f!eedom !esult unless the!e is

&e!( s*ecificE conc!ete *ositi&e law that *!e&ents it i.e. statutes on *!o*e!t( !i'hts1 Fede!alism and ,tates8 !i'hts a!'uments could be used b( sla&e7holdin' states to bolste! thei! *osition

and b( non7sla&e7holdin' states to *!ohibit sla&e!( au'ments the abilit( to *ush com*etin' a'endas1

39. F!eedom of ,*eechE Fede!alism and ,la&e!(

Man( southe!n ,tates *assed le'islation *!ohibitin' the ci!culation of anti7sla&e!( *ublicationsI

althou'h these laws touched on the *owe!s of fede!al *ostal officials and !aised constitutional=uestionsE the( we!e ne&e! liti'atedE *!ima!il( bc fede!al officials we!e willin' to com*l(

o AD Cushin' indi&idual ,tates could use olice owe! to *!e&ent insti'ation and insu!!ection

#stAmendment not an issue

o (arron v. (altimore /.,. #331 unanimous Cou!t held that the )ill of %i'hts a**lied to the

fede!al 'o&e!nment and not to the ,tates chan'es in #926 th!ou'h a**lication of the #

th

1

0. &ri!! v. &ennsylvania /.,. #21

-ecision $. ,to!(1:

o T#e +ugitive &lave Clause: &ital to the *assa'e of the Constitution bc it *!o&ided southe!n states

a 'ua!antee fo! the *!ese!&ation of thei! domestic inte!ests and institutions and 'ua!d a'ainst thedoct!ines and *!inci*les *!e&alent in the non7sla&e7holdin' states selfKust !i'hts of the owne! to !eclaim his sla&e?

-issent $. McLean1: claimant cannot dis!e'a!d the !e=ui!ement of the Act to ta;e the fu'iti&e sla&e

befo!e a fede!al Kud'e o! state ma'ist!ate befo!e ta;in' the fu'iti&e out of the stateo n sla&e7holdin' statesE e&e!( *e!son of colo! is *!esumed to be a sla&eI in non7sla&e7holdin'

statesE e&e!( *e!son is *!esumed to be f!ee wo !e'a!d to colo! olice *owe! should be allowed

#. %e'ulation of ,la&e!( in the


22/76


corpus to f!ee a fede!al *!isone! con&icted of &iolatin' it

Dred Scott v. Sandford /.,. #6+1

o ssue: whethe! the fede!al 'o&e!nment could claim *owe! o&e! newl(7ac=ui!ed te!!ito!ies &e!sus

those te!!ito!ies e5istin' at the time of the Constitution

o C$. Tane( clause in the Constitution !efe!!in' to Con'!ess8 autho!it( to ma;e !e'ulations in

!e'a!ds to te!!ito!ies !efe!s onl( to e5istin' te!!ito!( and not those newl( ac=ui!ed

The Missou!i Com*!omise was decla!ed unconstitutional The settle!s8 inte!ests we!e the obKect of Tane(8s decisionI settle!s sn be *!osc!ibed f!om

mo&in' into te!!ito!( wthei! >famil( andproperty?I would decide on sla&e!( at accession

o $. McLean dissentin' !e'ulation of fede!al te!!ito!ies *!io! to e&entual statehood

Fede!al 'o&e!nment is entitled to !each its own Kud'ment about sla&e!(I !eco'niGed thatE

e&entuall(E these inte!ests would continue to com*ete at the ,tate le&el

J. &ecession

# The case a'ainst secession Lincoln8s a!'uments

e!*etuit( of the /nion is im*liedE if not e5*!essedE in the fundamental law of 'o&e!nmentI *u!*ose

was to fo!m a >mo!e *e!fect union?E the!efo!eE the /nion was meant to be mo!e than tem*o!a!(

Fede!alismE as e5*!essed b( the Kudicia!(E shows that the fede!al 'o&e!nment is su*!eme

4&en if concei&ed of as a cont!actE it cannot be unmade b( less than all the *a!ties who made itI

unless the!e was a b!each of the cont!actE the!e would be no mo!al Kustification fo! !e&olution

Th!eat of succession would 'i&e an indi&idual state too much ba!'ainin' *owe!

,la&e!( ma( ha&e been fundamentall( i!!econcilable to the conce*t of a /nion of fee and sla&e states

2. The case fo! secession

!inci*le embodied in the -ecla!ation of nde*endence is self7dete!mination

o #0thAmendment *!oof that the /nion was meant to be tem*e!ed b( state so&e!ei'nt(

!ecedent fo!mation of /nion was based on the dissolution of the Confede!ac( led b( a maKo!it(

Fea! of sectional *olitics bt the


23/76


Fede!al s(stem of dual so&e!ei'nt( *!omotes th!ee com*lementa!( obKecti&es

3. To ,ecu!e the ublic Dood

@o a chec; on e5te!nalities f!om localiGed 'o&e!nmentE national 'o&e!nment should ste* inI

howe&e!E the!e a!e ad&anta'es of decent!aliGed decision7ma;in':

o Responsiveness to diverse interests and preferences ma5imiGes *ublic welfa!e b( allowin'

smalle! s(stems !eflect local desi!es and allowin' indi&iduals to f!eel( mo&e

o 'estructive co%petition for t#e *enefits of govern%ent unit of decision7ma;in' must bela!'e enou'h to !eflect full costs and benefitsE but small enou'h to minimiGe dest!ucti&ecom*etition localiGed cont!ol is mo!e efficient and less wasteful

o Innovation and co%petition in govern%ent local 'o&e!nmental units ha&e a '!eate!

o**o!tunit( and incenti&e to *ionee! useful chan'es often saluta!( !aces to the to*1 but

sometimes dest!ucti&e !aces to the bottom1I one8s &iew of the allocation of autho!it( fo! s*ecificissues de*ends on substanti&e outcomes !athe! than a 'ene!al theo!( of fede!alism

. To !otect >!i&ate %i'hts?

,tate and local 'o&e!nments a!e bette! *!otecto!s of libe!t(I but histo!( has shown that the fede!al

'o&e!nment can be a *!ima!( *!otecto! of indi&idual libe!ties

o i*erty t#roug# %o*ility factional o**!ession is mo!e li;el( to occu! in mo!e homo'enous

Ku!isdictions of indi&idual ,tatesI but o**!ession at the fede!al le&el can be mo!e dan'e!ous

o &elf 0interested govern%ent two distinct dan'e!s inhe!ent in !e*ublican 'o&e!nment:

o**!ession of the !ule!s8 and t(!ann( of the maKo!it(I dual so&e!ei'nt( combats both

o 'iffusion of power !i'hts of the *eo*le a!e best *!otected in a s(stem in which two distinct

'o&e!nments cont!ol each othe!I diffusion of *owe!E in and of itselfE is *!otecti&e of libe!t(

6. To !ese!&e the ,*i!it and Fo!m of o*ula! Do&e!nment

Anti7fede!alists belie&ed consolidated national 'o&e!nment would lead to a!istoc!atic o! des*otic !ule:

o !nforce%ent of laws obedience to the lawE in a !e*ublican 'o&e!nmentE must !el(

*!edominantl( u*on &olunta!( com*lianceI necessa!il( im*lies small units of 'o&e!nment

o 5ature of representation !e*!esentati&es in a smalle! unit of 'o&e!nment will be close! to the

*eo*leI 'eo'!a*hicall( concent!ated mino!ities a!e mo!e li;el( to achie&e !e*!esentationo Pu*lic spiritedness *ublic s*i!itedness can be culti&ated onl( in a !e*ublic of small

dimensionsI *ublic s*i!itedness is a *!oduct of *a!tici*ation in delibe!ation o&e! the *ublic 'ood

". Fundamental %i'hts

,ome issues a!e so fundamental to basic Kustice that the( must be ta;en out of maKo!ita!ian cont!ol

alto'ethe! and subKected to a sin'le national !uleI has nothin' to do wfede!alism

+. o*ula! Constitutionalism

Most of the Cou!t8s !et!eat f!om fede!alism has been a *!oduct of defe!ence to democ!atic choice

Constitution is e&e!(one8s !es*onsibilit(E not Kust the ,u*!eme Cou!t

%esto!ation of constitutional o!de! !e=ui!es a !enewed sense b( the *eo*le of the !elation of state

so&e!ei'nt( to the *ublic 'oodE indi&idual libe!t( and *o*ula! 'o&e!nment

I?. Constitutional Polity

. &lavery in t#e @.&.

# Thu!'ood Ma!shallE'eflections on the (icentennial of the nited States Constitution #9+1

Constitution is not a document whose meanin' is fo!e&e! fi5ed 'o&e!nment de&ised was defecti&e

f!om the sta!t and !e=ui!ed se&e!al amendmentsE a ci&il wa! and momentous social t!ansfo!mation toattain a s(stem of constitutional 'o&e!nment and its !es*ect fo! indi&idual f!eedoms and human !i'hts

Omissions of a *olit( in the constitutional f!amewo!; we!e intentional

a'e 23 of +"


24/76


o The wo!ds sla&e and sla&e!( we!e ca!efull( a&oided in the o!i'inal document

o The >self7e&ident t!uth? of e=ualit( a**lied onl( to white men

. Feh!enbache!E The ,la&e oldin' %e*ublic 200#1

Foundin' 'ene!ation conside!ed sla&e!( and sla&es as an inte'!al *a!t of the count!( and its econom(

o Constitution was a necessa!( com*!omise on the issue of sla&e!(E but it8s *!o&isions we!e not

aimed at continuin' o! *!otectin' sla&e!( as an institutionI intended to c!eate a st!on'e! fede!al

s(stem of 'o&e!nance in acco!dance wthe enume!ated *owe!s of the fede!al 'o&e!nment Case fo! a *!osla&e!( Constitution is as st!on' as that fo! an antisla&e!( Constitution

9. Da!!isonian *oint of &iew

The!e would not ha&e been a constitution if com*!omise on the issue of sla&e!( was not !eached

60. F!ede!ic; -ou'lasE >The Constitution of the /.,.: s it !o7,la&e!( o! Anti7,la&e!(? #"01

%eKects that the Constitution was w!itten to 'ua!antee a *!o*e!t( !i'ht in man sla&e!(1 I su''ests thatE

fo! the law to contem*late such a *u!*oseE it would ha&e to be clea!l( e5*!essed and not infe!!ed

-ebates in its fo!mation we!e ;e*t out of the *ublic in o!de! that the *eo*le should ado*tE not the

sec!et moti&es o! une5*!essed intentions of the f!ame!sE but the te5t itself

6#. The Constitution and its *!o7sla&e!( o! anti7sla&e!(1 slant

!ohibition of the sla&e t!ade fo! 20 (ea!s #01

o Anti7,la&e!( safe! to discuss the inte!national sla&e t!ade !athe! than the domestic sla&e t!adeI

!eflected the mo!al discou!se condemnation of )!itish im*e!ialism and !ealit( of sla&e!(1

-ou'las su''ests that the end of the sla&e t!ade was &iewed as the end of sla&e!(

o !o7,la&e!( 20 (ea! 'a* ma( ha&e been seen as a chance fo! a sea chan'e in *olitical o*inion

The 36 !e*!esentationta5 !ule

o Ta5ation and !e*!esentation wo!;ed a'ainst each othe! in comin' to this f!action

o -ou'las this is an incenti&e to f!ee sla&es in o!de! to inc!ease !e*!esentation

The Fu'iti&e ,la&e Clause

o %acism and the lac; of *olitical ca*ital ma( ha&e *!e&ented unit( a'ainst this issueo Ma( ha&e a**ea!ed !easonable &i!tual e5tension of the Full Faith and C!edit Clause1I !eflected a

belief that the fede!al 'o&e!nment was meant to *!otect *!o*e!t( while state 'o&e!nment c!eated*!o*e!t( !i'htssac!ed *!inci*les of libe!t( and *!o*e!t(

o -ou'las clause a**lied to indentu!ed se!&antsE and not to sla&es bc sla&es we!e *!o*e!t(

Fede!al *owe!sE the st!uctu!e of the senate and the electo!al colle'e

o The st!uctu!e of the senate and the electo!al colle'e a!e institutions that stand in the wa( of

national maKo!ita!ian *olic(7ma;in' and 'a&e dis*!o*o!tionate *owe! to sla&e7holdin' states

o -ou'las ,la&e insu!!ection clause 'i&es *owe! to the fede!al 'o&e!nment to end sla&e!(I while

sla&e!( e5istsE insu!!ections a!e *ossible and abolition is the onl( wa( to end the th!eat

2 The )ntelope /.,. #261 ,la&es as *!o*e!t( A case >in which the sac!ed !i'hts of libe!t( and of *!o*e!t( come into conflict weach othe!?

Althou'h sla&e!( is cont!a!( to the laws of natu!e natu!al law of libe!t( and a !i'ht to one8s labo!1E

inte!national law has not ado*ted these *!inci*lesI /.,. must !eco'niGe the claims of the sla&eholde!s

62. Dred Scott v. Sandford /.,. #6+1

@hethe! the descendents of sla&esE when emanci*ated o! bo!n to f!eed *a!entsE a!e citiGens of a ,tate

in the sense in which the wo!d citiGen is used in the Constitution

o ublic o*inion and ,tate le'islation

)lac;s had alwa(s been thou'h of as infe!io! o! as *!o*e!t(I e&e!( state !eco'niGed this

a'e 2 of +"


25/76


une=ual !elationshi*I non7sla&e7holdin' states acti&el( denied citiGenshi* to blac;s

o -ecla!ation of nde*endence

f blac;s we!e includedE the f!ame!s would ha&e been inconsistent wthei! *!inci*les

o Constitution

)lac;s we!e not included no! intended to be included in the conce*t of >*eo*le? o! >citiGen?

as concei&ed b( the f!ame!sI the( had no !i'hts o! *!i&ile'es but those that the 'o&e!nment

mi'ht choose to '!ant themI 3=!i'hts and immunities? the( we!e s(stematicall( denied

o Fede!alism

Cannot confuse the !i'hts of citiGenshi* '!anted b( a ,tate wthat as a membe! of the /nionI

Constitution '!anted the fede!al 'o&e!nment the e5clusi&e !i'ht to establish a unifo!m !ule ofnatu!aliGationno state can int!oduce new membe!s into the constitutional communit(

-issent $. Cu!tis1:

o Cannot concei&e of the Constitution as de*!i&in' f!ee blac;s of thei! status as citiGensI e&en if astate we!e to confe! citiGenshi* u*on f!ee blac;sE that would not necessa!il( entitle them tocitiGenshi* ac!oss the boa!dI states can den( as*ects of citiGenshi* on account of a'eE se5 andwant of le'al =ualificationsI citiGenshi* is not de*endent u*on *ossession of an( *a!ticula!*olitical o! ci&il !i'ht *undle of rig#ts analogy

". 5ative A%erican and t#e A%erican Political Co%%unity

# de*endent

so&e!ei'ns?E etc.I in the de&elo*ment of ndian lawE the!e has been maKo! sea chan'es in the fede!alo!ientation towa!d


26/76


27/76


6. 6t#er "inority 9roups

# The T!eatment of Asians

The Chinese /-clusion Case/.,. #91

o -ecision: in the absence of a t!eat(E Con'!ess has the autho!it( to e5clude non7citiGens

,eeKorematsu

6+. Manifest -estin(E 4m*i!e and the 45*ansion of the olit(

As the /.,. e5*anded westE it be'an to anne5 te!!ito!ies whose *!e&ious !ule!s had mo!e libe!al !ace

*oliciesI thou'h these te!!ito!ies had !acial *!oblemsE the distinction was not made on a le'al basis

T!eat( of Duadalu*e idal'o #1 'a&e Me5icans full citiGenshi*E but the laws of citiGenshi* in

this *e!iod was 'o&e!ned b( !ules of the indi&idual ,tatesE which we!e often !acist

4nsular Cases/.,. #90#1 ,tatus of ue!to %ico

o ue!to %ico is a te!!ito!( of the /.,. but not fo! *u!*oses of the Comme!ce Clause

-istinction was made bt !e'ulations affectin' te!!ito!ies and the inte!nal t!ade bt ,tatesI

e5tension of !i'hts to the inhabitants of newl(7ac=ui!ed te!!ito!ies was limited toconstitutional !i'hts ci&il !i'hts1E not *olitical !i'hts such as suff!a'e and citiGenshi*

o -issent: alluded to the Slau!hter,House CasesE which held that the /.,. included -.C. and the

te!!ito!iesE and dete!mined that Con'!ess8 abilit( to !e'ulate comme!ce included that bt the ,tatesand the te!!ito!iesI in additionE the inhabitants of the te!!ito!ies a!e 'ua!anteed fundamental !i'hts

6. %eli'ious -i&e!sit( and the Constitution

'eynolds v. nited States /.,. #+1

o -ecision: su''ested that an acce*tance of the defense of !eli'ious f!eedom ma( be 'o too fa! and

allow an indi&idual to act in a wa( so sociall( dest!ucti&e o! unacce*table so as to ma;e thedoct!ines of an( indi&idual !eli'ious belief su*e!io! to the laws of the land !eli'ious mino!ities

dn full( benefit f!om constitutional 'ua!antee of f!eedom of !eli'ion and F!ee 45e!cise Clause

?. Congressional Powers

A Ta4ing and &pending Power

# nited States v. (utler /.,. #93"1 The owe! to Ta5 and ,*end

"adisonian view *owe! to ta5 and s*end fo! the 'ene!al welfa!e is limited to enume!ated *owe!s

o California 'ailroad Cases /.,. #1

4stablished that Con'!ess has the *owe! to finance inte!state t!ans*o!tation *!oKects bc it is

!elated to the com*lete cont!ol and !e'ulation of inte!state comme!ce

$a%iltonian view the *owe! is substanti&e and limited onl( b( the !e=ui!ement that the acts a!e

e5e!cised in the >'ene!al welfa!e?I the *u!*ose of the le'islation must be 'ene!al and not local

o This &iew was followed in(utler and is the status of the law toda(J

o Ste#ard Machine Company andHelverin! /.,. #93+1


28/76


Cou!t has u*held ta5 laws that ha&e !e'ulato!( effects if the scheme a**ea!sE on its faceE as a ta5

!e&enue buildin'1 !athe! than a !e'ulato!( measu!e *enalt(1

o Sonzins%y v. nited States /.,. #93+1 u*held fede!al law !e=ui!in' !e'iste!ation wthe %, and

an annual *a(ment of P200 ta5 fo! each t!ansfe! of a fi!ea!ms

A ta5 is not an( less the ta5 bc it has a !e'ulato!( effectI the cou!ts dn ha&e the com*etenc(

to in=ui!e into the hidden moti&es of Con'!ess to e5e!cise a constitutionall( 'i&en *owe!

"0. South Da%ota v. Dole /.,. #9+1 ,*endin' owe! as a %e'ulato!( Tool Con'!ess can act indi!ectl( th!ou'h its s*endin' *owe! to encou!a'e unifo!mit(

o +irst the e5e!cise of the s*endin' *owe! must be in *u!suit of the >'ene!al welfa!e?E thou'h

Con'!ess is entitled to conside!able defe!ence

o &econd Con'!ess must condition !ecei*t of fede!al funds unambi'uousl(E enablin' states to

e5e!cise choice ;nowin'l( consent of the ,tates1I conditionin' must be s*ecific

o T#ird condition on fede!al '!ants mi'ht be ille'itimate if un!elated to the fede!al inte!est

o +ourt# othe! constitutional *!o&isions ma( *!o&ide an inde*endent ba! to the conditional '!ant

of fede!al fundsI cannot amount to com*ulsion !athe! than encou!a'ement

-issent $. O8Conno!1: a statute sn be too attenuated in the lin;a'e bt the national inte!est i.e.E

d!un; d!i&in'1 and the *a!ticula! conditions im*osed i.e.E unde!7inclusi&e and o&e!7inclusi&e1I thestatute is !e'ulato!( !athe! than win Con'!ess8 s*endin' *owe!s

"#. Fede!alism and the ,*endin' owe!

Morrison !aised the sta;es fo! constitutional doct!ine in the s*endin' *owe!

o Followin'DoleE Con'!ess could !e=ui!e states to ado*t le'islation essentiall( the same as the

HA@A o! else !is; not !ecei&in' fede!al fundsI this >int!usion? on fede!alism b( anothe! meanss*endin' *owe!1 would not !aise the fla' as did the di!ect le'islation inMorrison

-oes the distinction bt comme!ce and s*endin' *owe!s ma;e sense in that the latte! !e=ui!es the

fede!al 'o&e!nment to >*a( fo!? state !e'ulation

o The =uestion fo! futu!e cases is whethe! the Cou!t will limit the s*endin' *owe! this is an

issue unde! the commandee!in' cases fede!al s*endin' should be !eflected in obtainin' state

com*liance one of $. ,calia8s conce!ns and $. ,oute!8s beef1

The conse!&ati&e di!ection of the(utlerCou!t was intended to si'nal a disce!nable diffe!ence bt

statutes that we!e tole!able unde! these *owe!s and those that we!e not :utlersignals a li%it

@hat is Consent:

o @hat is coercive when states ma( act idios(nc!aticall( in !es*onse to fede!al conditions

o Fede!al ta5ation *owe! and the s*endin' that follows1 ma( in effect limit the abilit( of states to

actE o! at least *!o&ide the same benefits that the fede!al 'o&e!nment canI this ma( cause states toa&oid *ossible acti&ities in lieu of fede!al acti&it(I this is a de facto limit to state so&e!ei'nt(

P. Treaty Power

# T!eat( owe! as an Au'mente! of Con'!ess8 owe!s

Missouri v. Holland /.,. #9201 t!eat( can o&e!!ide the ,tates8 autho!it( to !e'ulate *!i&ate !elations

on the basis that national !e'ulation was Kustified fo! the *u!*ose of the t!eat( to be attained

T!eat( *owe! can be &iewed as eithe!:

o #1 deferrin!to the com*etin' inte!ests of the nation &e!sus those of the states

o 21 as a balancebt those com*etin' inte!ests

o 31 as an inherent po#erof the national 'o&e!nment to se!&e &ital national inte!ests

"2. T!eat( owe! is not a Dua!anteed Means of Ci!cum&entin' the Constitution

4nsular Cases/.,. #90#1 ,tatus of ue!to %ico

a'e 2 of +"


29/76


o Concu!!ence: ue!to %ico cannot become an inco!*o!ated te!!ito!( Kust th!ou'h the t!eat( *owe!I

an act of inco!*o!ation must occu! to bestow Constitutional *!i&ile'es u*on an ac=ui!ed te!!ito!(

o -issent: decision to ma;e a t!eat( that will c!eate a te!!ito!( cannot be li'htl( ente!ed intoI

ac=uisition was le'itimate and *laces the te!!ito!( win the constitutional !ule of unifo!mit(

'eid v. Covert /.,. #96+1

o lu!alit( o*inion that stated that the t!eat( *owe! cn confe! *owe! u*on Con'!essE o! an( othe!

b!anchE which is f!ee f!om the !est!aints of the Constitution Can Con'!ess use its t!eat( *owe! to c!eate state obli'ations th!ou'h enactment of t!eaties

Q. Co%%erce Power

i Regulation of t#e Interstate !cono%y

# ,u*!emac( Clause

,u*!emac( Clause A!t. "E 21 'i&es the fede!al 'o&e!nment su*!emac( whe!e laws ma( conflict

wstate7enacted laws

"3. Comme!ce Clause

Comme!ce Clause A!t. #E 1 'i&es Con'!ess the !i'ht to !e'ulate t!ade wfo!ei'n nationsE amon'

the se&e!al ,tates and t!ade winte!state comme!ce? as

distin'uished f!om some local acti&it(

o A!e thepurposes of a !e'ulation consistent wthe *u!*oses fo! which Con'!ess was dele'ated the

*owe! to !e'ulate inte!state comme!ce

o @hethe! a *a!ticula! instance of con'!essional !e'ulation of inte!state comme!ce !uns afoul of the

!ese!&ation of *owe!s to the states !eco'niGed b( the #0 th >dual fede!alism?

The Cou!t8s a**lication of the Comme!ce Clause has eme!'ed in th!ee a!eas fo! !e'ulation

o #1 %e'ulation of the channels of inte!state comme!ce i.e.E Darby andHeart of )tlanta Motel1

o

21 %e'ulation of a1 the inst!umentalities of inte!state comme!ce o! b1 thin's o! *e!sons ininte!state comme!ceE e&en thou'h the th!eat ma( come onl( f!om int!astate acti&ities

o 31 %e'ulation of thin's o! *!ocesses that di!ectl( effect inte!state comme!ce

n ea!l( casesE e5tent of autho!it( tu!ned on di!ectindi!ect effect i.e.EHammer v. Da!enhart1

Toda(E the acti&it( mustsubstantially affect inte!state comme!ce i.e.E1ones ; *au!hlin1

". The ,tates8 >olice owe!s? as a Const!aint on the


30/76


o A &alid con'!essional !e'ulation of inte!state comme!ce *!e7em*ts inconsistent state !e'ulations

Mayor of the City of "e# $or% v. Miln /.,. #3+1

o 45clusi&e '!ant of *owe! in Con'!ess is onl( so if:

12 it is e5*licitl( decla!ed in the clause 'i&in' such *owe!

32 it is *!ohibited to the states

72 e5e!cise of the *owe! b( the ,tates would be incom*atible to a simila! *owe! in Con'!ess

'or%ant Co%%erce Power ma( a ,tate !e'ulate comme!ce in the absence of an Act of Con'!ess

o Ma!shall su''estsE in Wilson v. (lac% (ird Cree% Marsh Co.E that state action is not inconsistent to

Con'!ess8 >do!mant comme!ce *owe!?

T#e &u*:ect of Interstate Co%%erce e!sons

o Mayor of "$C v. Miln #3+1I *owe! to !e'ulate comme!ce cannot be e5tended to *e!sons

o Groves v. Slau!hter /.,. ##1 The nte!state ,la&e T!ade

$. McLean and C$. Tane(: denied that sla&es we!e an item of comme!ceI e&en if desc!ibed as

me!chandiseE that cannot di&est them of thei! =ualit( as *e!sons as desi'nated b( theConstitutionI howe&e!E the *owe! o&e! sla&e!( belon's to the ,tates

f sla&es we!e an item of comme!ceE Con'!ess could !e'ulate the inte!state sla&e t!ade

$. )aldwin: sla&es we!e an item of comme!ceE the !e'ulation of which la( wCon'!ess

%e'ulate o!prohibition of dan'e!ous 'oods includin' !e'ulation of mo!als1

o Champion v. )mes 8 The *ottery Case /.,. #9031

f a state can *!o*e!l( !e'ulate fo! the mo!al 'oodE Con'!ess should be able to *!o&ide that

comme!ce will not be >*olluted b( the ca!!(in' of lotte!( tic;ets? f!om one state to anothe!

-issent: *owe! of the state to im*ose !est!aints and bu!dens on *e!sons and *!o*e!t( in the

conse!&ation and *!omotion of the >*ublic healthE 'ood o!de! and *!os*e!it(? police power is a *owe! o!i'inall( and e5clusi&el( belon'in' to the states

1ones ; *au!hlin Steel /.,. #93+1

o /*held


31/76


o Abilit( of Con'!ess to !e'ulate*!ohibit the t!ans*o!tation of commodities bt states is subKect to

#1 the cha!acte! of the *a!ticula! subKects dealt wand 21 the 'o&e!nmentalE state o! nationalE!e=ui!ement of *!ohibition in o!de! to !e'ulate this element is lac;in' the act dn !e'ulate

t!ans*o!tationE but aims to standa!diGe the a'e of child!en em*lo(ed in minin' and manufactu!in'

Comme!ce Clause was not intended to 'i&e Con'!ess a 'ene!al autho!it( to e=ualiGe *ossible

economic ad&anta'eI '!ant of comme!ce *owe! was not a '!ant of *olice *owe! o&e! the local

o -issent $. olmes1: if an act is win Con'!ess8 enume!ated *owe!sE indi!ect effects a!e ne'li'ible

nited States v. (utler and Carter Coal Co. /.,. #93"1

o Commerceis e=ui&alent to intercourse for the purposes of trade

o Minin' of coal and a'!icultu!e constitute the intercourse of productionE not tradeI minin'E

manufactu!in' and a'!icultu!e a!e *u!el( local in cha!acte!

nited States v. *ar)y /.,. #9#1 6verturns t#e 'istinction

o +acial %otivations whethe! intended to !e'ulate inte!state comme!ce th!ou'h wa'e !e'ulation

o! intended to di!ectl( !e'ulate wa'esE dn chan'e the fact that such !e'ulation is not a fo!biddenin&asion of ,tate *owe! Con'!ess is no lon'e! !e=ui!ed to hide t!ue intentions1I the !e'ulationhas the *u!*ose to *!e&ent inte!state comme!ce f!om bein' used as a tool fo! unfai! com*etition

45*licitl( o&e!tu!nsHammer v. Da!enhartand *uts aside the !ationale in Carter Coal

recognies an overlap */t federal power to regulate interstate co%%erce and t#e &tates

police powers #0 th Amendment becomes a t!uism1

o Jones ; (au!%lin Steel /.,. #93+1

,tream of commercea!'ument is not necessa!(I acti&ities that ha&e a close and substantial

!elation to inte!state comme!ce must be *!otected so that comme!ce is f!ee f!om bu!densI an(!e'ulation whose subKect is em*lo(ees is conside!ed win the comme!ce *owe!

Test Case this case ma( be too a!chet(*al fo! inte!state comme!ceI inflows and outflows

a!e enou'h fo! the Cou!t to define inte!state comme!ceI1ones ; *au!hlinwas not so*a!ticula!l( s*ecialI the Cou!t was o*en to b!oad definitions of inte!state comme!ce

o Mulford v. Smith #9391 and Wic%ard v. ilburn #921


32/76


o -issent $. Ca!doGo1: di!ect and indi!ect must not be !ead too narro#ly the *owe! should be as

b!oad as the need that e&o;es it1I disca!ds sim*licit( of distinction bt di!ect and indi!ect

7ic


33/76


o Could Con'!ess ha&e *assed the test b( mo&in' the cate'o!iGation of the statute f!om cate'o!( 3

substantial effects test 1 to cate'o!( 2b Ku!isdictional element1 Con'!ess did so wthe second

Dun F!ee ,chool ActI howe&e!E this is not a 'ua!antee

O!i'inal ntention of the Comme!ce Clause

o ma'ine the!e a!e two *!inci*les of the o!i'inal unde!standin' of comme!ce:

#1 the fede!al 'o&e!nment would !e'ulate thin's that we!e t!ul( inte!state

21 the states would !etain cont!ol o&e! most !e'ulation

MaKo!it( seems willin' to sac!ifice the fi!st *!inci*leI the dissentsE the second

+0. The ,ubstantial 4ffects -oct!ine*opez #9961 andMorrison 20001

C$. %ehn=uist and the MaKo!it(:

o +ederalis% di&ision of autho!it( intended to ensu!e *!otection of fundamental libe!tiesI health(

balance bt the ,tates and the fede!al 'o&e!nment !educes the !is; of t(!ann( and abuse

o &tandard of Review the test unde! Cate'o!( 3E those acti&ities ha&in' a substantial !elation to

inte!state comme!ceE !e=ui!es that the acti&it( must >substantiall( affect? inte!state comme!ce

12 acti&it( in =uestion should be some so!t of economic endea&o!I e&en unde! Wic%ard8s

a''!e'ation *!inci*leE the !e'ulated acti&it( should be of an a**a!ent comme!cial cha!acte!

32 the statute should ha&e a Ku!isdictional element that limits the !each to a disc!ete set of&iolato!sI the statute cannot be o&e!l( b!oadI the means must be tailo!ed to fit the endIKu!isdictional element maybe enou'h but what does ma( entail1

72 e5istence of con'!essional findin's facilitates the Kudicial in=ui!( into whethe! o! not the

le'islatu!e *!o*e!l( adduced that a *a!ticula! acti&it( substantiall( affects inte!statecomme!ce e&en if no substantial effect is &isible to the na;ed e(e

45istence of le'islati&e findin's is not *!obati&eI Kudicia!( is the final a!bite! on this issue

,2 lin;a'e bt the acti&it( and inte!state comme!ce must not be so tenuous so as to 'i&e the

fede!al 'o&e!nment an abilit( to !e'ulate an( and all acti&it( that ma( ha&e a simila!!elationshi* >but fo!? causal connection is not mediated b( a''!e'ation of effects1

Constitution !e=ui!es a distinction bt what is t!ul( national and what is t!ul( local

$$. Benned( and O8Conno!:

o Limits the holdin'

%eco'niGes that a sin'leE national ma!;et is still eme!'in' and the Comme!ce Clause sn be

'utted so as to ma;e it insufficient to su**o!t an e5e!cise of national *owe!

owe&e!E *!o*oses that some cha!acte!iGations of comme!ce sn *ass muste!

$. Thomas:

o Ac;nowled'es that a !e&olution too; *lace to !each the cu!!ent definition of the Comme!ce

ClauseE but the Cou!t8s inte!*!etation should be !e7e5amined and a**lied na!!owl(E as intended

The cu!!ent inte!*!etationE in conKunction wthat of the


34/76


Con'!ess should be allowed to ste* in when the e&idence su''ests that the ,tates ha&e

not ade=uatel( alle&iated the bu!den *laced on indi&iduals

$. )!e(e!: the econo%ic/non


35/76


!ecedeI this assumes that Con'!ess8 comme!ce *owe! li&es win the f!amewo!; of fede!alism

e!ha*s the!e should be some constitutional amendment to dete!mine the bounda!ies bt the

states and the fede!al 'o&e!nment Cou!t has a&oided the need fo! f!e=uent amendment b(

const!uin' the Constitution in a wa( that is fle5ible fo! chan'in' ci!cumstances i.e.E Garcia1

R. T#e 1=t#A%end%ent as a i%it on Congress Power

# %elationshi* bt the #0thand ##thAmendments

#0th*ic;s u* man( of the issues that fall th!ou'h the c!ac;s of ## thKu!is*!udence

o $udicial immunit( dn mean that the states a!e immune f!om any incu!sion on thei! so&e!ei'nt(I

this is whe!e the #0 thcomes into *la(

-eals wthe abilit( of Con'!ess to ma;e the ,tates act in a wa( that the( want the ,tates to act

o #0thseems to be b!oade! than the ##th fo!me! a**lies to state and local officialsE whe!eas the

latte! a**lies to the states and thei! inst!umentalities chec; the lan'ua'e1

The!e a!e two b!anches to this Ku!is*!udence the Garcia and&rintzb!anches

+2. A**lication of Fede!al Laws to the ,tates The Garcia Line of Cases

Maryland v. Wirtz /.,. #9"1

o /*held Fai! Labo! ,tanda!d Act as a**lied to ,tate institutions on two theo!ies:

Darby Act *!e&ents unfai! com*etition bt ente!*!ises of diffe!ent ,tates costs of all in*utsE

not Kust those wa di!ect !elation to comme!ce 'o into the calculus and a!e fai!l( !e'ulated1

1ones ; *au!hlin Act also *!e&ents labo! st!ife that mi'ht dis!u*t the flow of 'oods

"ational *ea!ue of Cities v. sery /.,. #9+"1 o&e!!uled Wirtz

o @hethe! an Act win the sco*e of the Comme!ce Clause is constitutionall( ba!!ed bc it is a**lied

di!ectl( to the ,tates and subdi&isions of ,tates as em*lo(e!s

o -ecision: +ederalis% the functions of state and national 'o&e!nment a!e essentiall( se*a!ate

and inde*endentI Con'!ess ma( not ab!o'ate the ,tates8 othe!wise *lena!( autho!it(

,tates a!e not me!e facto!s in the >shiftin' economic a!!an'ements? of the econom(E but a!e

coo!dinate elements in the s(stem established b( the F!ame!s

Act would fo!bid choice b( the ,tates in labo! *olicies same could be said fo! *!i&ate acto!s1

!of. owell a!'ued that"ational *ea!ue of Cities is w!itten as a st!uctu!alE !athe! than

te5tualE o*inion: e&en the in&ocation of the #0thitself a&oids ca!eful e5amination of thelan'ua'eI it is used to e5em*lif( b!oade! st!uctu!al im*lications of the fede!alismI *a!t ofthe !eason ma( be that the #0thdn ha&e lan'ua'e that e5*licitl( defines states8 !i'hts

o -issent: laws win the comme!ce *owe! ma( not inf!in'e indi&idual libe!tiesE but the!e is no

!est!aint based on state so&e!ei'nt( !e=ui!in' o! *e!mittin' Kudicial enfo!cement

3arcia v. San #ntonio =# /.,. #961 o&e!!uled"ational *ea!ue of Cities

o -ecision $. )lac;mun1: o&e!tu!ned"ational *ea!ue of Cities

+ederalis% ,tate so&e!ei'n inte!ests a!e mo!e *!o*e!l( *!otected b( *!ocedu!al safe'ua!ds

inhe!ent in the st!uctu!e of the fede!al s(stem than b( Kudiciall( c!eated limitations

4&en wthe chan'es since #+9E the fundamental limitation that the constitutional scheme

im*oses on the Comme!ce Clause to *!otect the >,tates as ,tates? is one of *!ocess !athe!than one of !esult substanti&e !est!aints must find thei! basis in *!ocedu!al limitations1

egal for%alis% found that the ;ind of !easonin' in"ational *ea!ue of Cities !e=ui!es a

fo!m a le'al fo!malism that is not mana'eableI b( 'i&in' states an out f!om fede!al labo!standa!dsE *ublic entities ha&e an economic ad&anta'e o&e! *!i&ate acto!s states dn need

this ;ind of *!otection Carolene &roducts Footnote !ationale a**lied to the states1

o -issent $. owell1:

a'e 36 of +"


36/76


Questions whethe! the a&ailabilit( of the democ!atic *!ocess is sufficient to 'ua!antee that

*a!ticula! e5e!cises of the Comme!ce Clause *owe! will not inf!in'e on state so&e!ei'nt(

/su!*ation of functions t!aditionall( *e!fo!med b( the ,tates b( fede!al o&e!!eachin'

unde!mines the balance of *owe! bt the ,tates and the fede!al 'o&e!nment it is at the state

and local le&els not in @ashin'ton that democ!atic self7'o&e!nment is best e5em*lified

o -issent $. O8Conno!1:

C$. Ma!shall said that all means that a!e a**!o*!iate must be consistent wthe lette! and s*i!itof the Constitution s*i!it of the #0this that the ,tates !etain thei! inte'!it( in a s(stem of

fede!al su*!emac(I this *!inci*le !e=ui!es the Cou!t to enfo!ce affi!mati&e limits on fede!al!e'ulation to com*lement the Kudiciall( c!afted e5*ansion of the inte!state comme!ce *owe!

+3. Commandee!in' The&rintz Line of Cases

Testa &. BatG #9+1

o 4stablished that Con'!ess can 'i&e ,tate cou!ts fede!al subKect7matte! Ku!isdiction and that it is

not o*tional fo! ,tate cou!t to acce*t the fede!al =uestion

o $. O8Conno!E in"e# $or%E su''ested that the ,u*!emac( Clause dealt onl( w,tate cou!ts

a**l(in' fede!al laws cou!ts a!e *assi&eE whe!eas le'islatu!es a!e *olic(7ma;e!s1

o owe&e!E the common law s(stem allows state cou!ts to ma;e *olic(

Print5 v. nited States /.,. #99+1 Commandee!in' Line of Cases

o )!ad( Act was challen'ed as &iolati&e of the"e# $or%*!inci*le Con'!ess cannot command the

,tates to im*lement le'islation1 in !elation to >commandee!in'? ,tate e5ecuti&e office!s

o -ecision $. ,calia1:

$istorical understanding *ast *!actice shows that the Constitution was unde!stood to

*e!mit im*osition of an obli'ation on ,tate Kud'es win the limits of fede!al Kudicial *owe!

7/21/2019 Malamud Con Law Fa

malamud con law fall

Documents