constitutional law spring 2008 prof. fischer class 10 january 30, 2008 the commerce clause ii...
TRANSCRIPT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SPRING 2008
PROF. FISCHERCLASS 10
January 30, 2008The Commerce Clause II
Interpretation: 1937-present
From 1937 change in approach to commerce clause
interpretation
What factors led to change in approach?
Election of 1936: Landslide for Roosevelt
Roosevelt’s Court-packing plan
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin (1937) [C p. 131]
• Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the majority opinion of the Court
• 5-4 decision (the “Four Horsemen” all dissented)
Change in approach from 1937
• Meaning of “commerce”
• Meaning of “among the . . . States”
• Whether Tenth Amendment operates as a limit on the commerce power of Congress
U.S. v. Darby (1941) [C p. 134]
• Justice Stone delivered opinion of the Court (unanimous)
Wickard v. Filburn (1942) [C p. 136]
• Justice Robert Jackson delivered opinion of a unanimous Court
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Ass’n (1981) [C p. 143]
• Majority opinion by Marshall (joined by Brennan, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens]
• pay attention to Rehnquist’s concurring opinion
CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS: COMMERCE POWER USED TO
PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION• E.g. Heart of Atlanta
Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) [C p. 139] and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) (CB p. 141)
CRIMINAL LAWS • Perez v. United
States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971) [C p. 143]
• Majority opinion by Douglas, joined by Burger, Black, Brennan, White, Mashall, and Blackmun
• Dissent by Stewart
3 THINGS CAN BE REGULATED UNDER THE COMMERCE
POWER• 1. Channels of interstate commerce (e.g.
roads, terms/conditions on which goods can be sold interstate)
• 2. Instrumentalities of interstate commerce (e.g airlines, railroads, trucking) and persons/things in interstate commerce
• 3. Activity that [substantially] affects interstate commerce (read together with N & P clause)
U.S. v. Darby (1941) [C p. 134]
• Justice Stone delivered opinion of the Court (unanimous)
• Tenth Amendment “states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.”
National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) [C p. 145]
• 5-4 Majority opinion written by Justice Rehnquist (joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, and Powell)
• Concurring opinion by Blackmun
• Dissent by Brennan joined by White and Marshall
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
(1985) [C p.148]• 5-4• Justice Blackmun
wrote the majority opinion, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, and Stevens
• Powell, Rehnquist, O’Connor, Burger dissent