Which governments can regulate interstate between or among states trade and commerce quizlet?

Federalism

a principle of government that provides for the division of powers between the national and state governments.

What are the two main types of federalism?

Dual Federalism and Cooperative Federalism

Dual Federalism

Views the powers of the national and state governments as mutually exclusive and therefore in conflict. Favors states' rights. Related to the strict interpretation of the Constitution

Cooperative Federalism

Views federalism as a partnership between the national and state governments, but acknowledges national supremacy and the importance of a strong central government. Related to the loose interpretation of the Constitution.

Commerce Clause

Gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Supremacy Clause

States that the national government is ultimately always supreme over the states.

Plenary/Exclusive Power

The central government's power is supreme and absolute.

Gibbons v. Ogden

Background: Conflict about state law versus national law about operating steamboats on interstate waterways.

Question: Is the regulation of interstate waterways for purposes of commerce a power reserved for the states or the federal government?

Decision: The regulation of navigation for purposes of conducting interstate commerce is a power reserved to Congress.

Significance: Established that regulating interstate commerce is a power reserved for the federal government. Provided a clear definition of the word "commerce," which is important in later commerce clause cases. Was the first Commerce Clause case decided by the Supreme Court.

Stafford v. Wallace

Background: Conflict about whether the federal government had the right to regulate prices and business practices for the meatpacking industry when the industry is forming monopolies and setting prices too high.

Question: Did the Commerce Clause give Congress the authority to pass and enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act?

Decision: The unfair practices in the meatpacking industry hindered the freedom of interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress had the authority to regulate the industry.

Significance: The decision began the Court's trend of interpreting interstate commerce regulations as within the federal government's power. Helped establish the federal government's supremacy over states' rights in issues of interstate commerce.

Houston, East, & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States (The Shreveport Rate Case

Background: Conflict about whether the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which was established by Congress to regulate interstate commerce, could regulate rail prices for trips within Texas based on the high rates for interstate trips.

Question: Did the ICC have the power to regulate the railroads' intrastate rates?

Decision: The Court ruled that the difference in prices between interstate trips and intrastate trips negatively affected interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress had the right to regulate both of them to protect interstate commerce through the ICC. The Court also ruled that since Congress had the right to regulate interstate commerce, and it chose to do so through the ICC, the ICC was legitimate.

Significance: The case reinforced that Congress has the right to regulate not only interstate commerce, but also intrastate commerce that is closely related to interstate commerce.

Police Power

the authority of the states to write laws that protect the public health, safety, welfare, and morals of their residents. A broad authority to legislate for the general welfare given to the states by the 10th amendment as a reserved power.

Champion v. Ames

Background: Two people were convicted of transporting lottery tickets across state lines, which was made illegal by a previous federal law.

Question: Does the transport of lottery tickets by independent people constitute "commerce" that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause?

Decision: When lottery tickets are transported across state lines they become part of interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. By enforcing this law, Congress was helping states that wanted to protect public morals by banning lotteries within their state borders.

Significance: It established that Congress had the right to regulate commerce in a way that empowered states to determine, to an extent, the types of commerce they wanted to allow.

What is the relationship between the Commerce Clause and racial discrimination?

Congress relied on the Commerce Clause when passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act to justify making racial discrimination in public places like hotels and restaurants illegal. The argument was that when private businesses refused to serve African Americans, it interfered with interstate commerce.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

Background: The motel was charged with racial discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Question: Did Congress exceed its Commerce Clause powers by passing and enforcing the anti-discrimination portion of the Civil Rights Act?

Decision: The Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce when they affected interstate commerce, and the anti-discrimination part of the Civil Rights Act relating to hotels fell under that category, making the anti-discrimination clause of the Civil Rights Act constitutional.

Significance: This case is significant because it established that the Commerce Clause was valid constitutional justification for banning certain types of racial discrimination.

Katzenbach v. McClung

Background: A restaurant refused to serve blacks, and was charged with violating the anti-discrimination clause of the Civil Rights Act.

Question: Does a restaurant's refusal to serve blacks burden interstate commerce to the extent that Congress can legitimately prohibit such discrimination?

Decision: The restaurant discrimination placed a significant burden on interstate commerce because the restaurant received a lot of its food through interstate commerce and because it posed restrictions on blacks traveling from state to state.

Significance: The case upholds the broad application of the Commerce Clause for federal regulation.

Sherman Anti-Trust Act

Made it illegal to monopolize or restrain interstate commerce in order to prevent monopolies in trade or commerce.

Federal Child Labor Act of 1916

Banned the interstate shipping of goods produced by child labor. Related to Hammer v. Dagenhart.

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved for the states.

5th Amendment

Guarantees due process of law related to a person's life, liberty, or property.

Hammer v. Dagenhart (The Child Labor Case)

Background: a father claimed the Child Labor Act was unconstitutional because he believed it was his right as a parent to allow his son to work in a factory.

Question: Does the Child Labor Act violate the Commerce Clause, the 10th Amendment, or the 5th Amendment?

Decision: The Child Labor Act was unconstitutional in two ways: 1) The work done in factories (production of goods that will later be part of interstate commerce) is not part of commerce, and therefore not within Congress's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. 2) The regulation of production was reserved to the states based on the 10th amendment.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Interstate Commerce

In Hammer v. Dagenhart, the Court distinguished between direct and indirect effects on interstate commerce. If something, such as production, has an indirect effect on interstate commerce, it is not within federal regulatory jurisdiction. If something, such as the interstate transportation of goods, has a direct effect on interstate commerce, then it is within federal regulatory jurisdiction.

Carter v. Carter Co.

Background: Congress enacted a federal law to regulate prices and set minimum wages, maximum hours, and other fair practices of the coal industry. Although compliance was voluntary, there were tax refunds as incentives to comply.

Question: Did the Coal Act exceed congressional powers under the Commerce Clause?

Decision: The Act was unconstitutional because commerce is different from production, and employing workers and setting fair practices were part of the local process of production, which could not be regulated under the Commerce Clause (it has an indirect effect on interstate commerce). Therefore, the Act did overstep the boundaries of federal power.

Significance: emphasized that something had to be directly related to the interstate portion of commerce to be within the federal government's jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, and represented a shift in Court philosophy favoring dual federalism instead of cooperative federalism.

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (The Wagner Act)

Background: A federal law determined that labor management disputes were directly related to interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the federal government through the Labor Relations Board.

Question: Was the National Labor Relations Act constitutional under the Commerce Clause?

Decision: The Act was constitutional because it was designed narrowly to regulate activities that had the potential to directly impact interstate commerce. The Court determined that labor disputes had the potential to impact interstate commerce, and therefore the national government has the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate them.

Significance: This decision reversed the Court's previous claim that labor relations only had an indirect effect on interstate commerce and therefore couldn't be regulated by Congress. This decision overruled the decisions in Hammer v. Dagenhart and Carter Coal.

Wickard v. Filburn

A small farmer received land from the federal government to harvest wheat, but came with restrictions about how much wheat he could harvest. He harvested more than the limit, though he argued that it was for his own personal use and not for commerce, but was fined.

Question: Was the restriction on how much wheat he could grow unconstitutional because Congress could not regulate local activities (activities that are not part of interstate commerce)?

Decision: The restriction was not unconstitutional because if an activity has the potential to significantly effect interstate commerce directly or indirectly, even if it is a local activity, Congress has the right to regulate it. In this case, the extra wheat being produced had the potential to affect the national supply and demand of wheat (which is part of interstate commerce), and was therefore subject to restriction.

Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990

Made it a federal offense to have a gun in a school zone. Based the law on the Commerce Clause by saying carrying a gun could be repeated in many places across the country.

U.S. v. Lopez

Background: A student brought a gun to school and was charged with violating Texas state law that prohibited having weapons at school. Then, the state charges were dropped and the student was charged with violating federal law (the Gun Free School Zones Act).

Question: Is the Gun Free Schools Act unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

Decision: The Act is unconstitutional because the possession of a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that could impact interstate commerce. The court said the law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity.

Significance: Placed limits on what can be defined as interstate commerce and was the first major setback for the exercise of the federal police power since the Great Depression.

Section 13981 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994

Provided a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence based on the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment, which Congress had identified as the sources of federal authority for the Section.

14th Amendment

Addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizenship, including the guarantee to equal protection of the law and redress when an individual is harmed by the state.

U.S. v. Morrison

Background: The victim of a sexual assault sued her attacker on the basis that the assault violated Section 13981 of the Violence Against Women Act.

Question: Does Congress have the authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act under either the Commerce Clause or the 14th Amendment?

Decision: Sexual assault is not something that substantially affects interstate commerce and is not a harm caused by the state. Therefore, Congress did not have the authority to enforce the Act under the Commerce Clause or the 14th Amendment. Justice for victims of assault must be provided by the state government, not the national government.

Gonzalez v. Raich

Background: A California law legalizing medical marijuana conflicted with federal law, the Controlled Substances Act, that banned possession of marijuana based on the Commerce Clause.

Question: Does the Controlled Substances Act exceed Congress's power under the Commerce Clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?

Decision: The Commerce Clause does give Congress the authority to prohibit the local growth and use of marijuana despite conflicting state laws because Congress can regulate local activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Court argued that local marijuana growth and use affected national supply and demand, making the regulation of intrastate marijuana essential to regulating the national market.

11th Amendment

the government cannot be sued without its consent.

Power to Tax and Spend

Congress has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare of the United States.

McCray v. United States

Background: Congress passed an act that put a very high tax on artificially-colored butter, while naturally colored butter was taxed at a very low rate. A seller did not pay the higher tax when selling the artificial product.

Question: Did the congressional act overstep the boundaries of the congressional taxing powers established in the Constitution?

Decision: The taxes were constitutional because Congress has a virtually unlimited power to tax.

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (The Child Labor Tax Case)

Background: Congress passed the Child Labor Tax Law based on its taxing powers to prevent child labor. A company violated the law and was required to pay high penalty taxes, which it claimed were unconstitutional.

Question: Did Congress violate the Constitution by adopting the Child Labor Tax Law to regulate child employment, a power that is reserved to the states under the 10th amendment?

Decision: The law was unconstitutional because it was a state's right to adopt and enforce child labor codes. Furthermore, the tax law had a significance regulatory effect on something that was not within congressional jurisdiction, leaving the potential for setting a precedent that destroyed all constitutional limitation on the powers of Congress by disguising regulatory legislation as a tax issue.

U.S. v. Butler

Background: A federal act implemented a processing tax on agricultural commodities, from which funds would be redistributed to farmers who reduced their acreage.

Question: Did Congress exceed its constitutional taxing and spending powers with the Act?

Decision: The Act was unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate and control agricultural production, a power that is reserved to the states.

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis

Background: The Steward Machine Company challenged a federal payroll tax imposed by the Social Security Act on employers, but if the employers paid taxes to a state unemployment fund, they were allowed to credit those payments toward the federal tax.

Question: Did the Act arbitrarily impose taxes in violation of the 5th Amendment or subvert principles of federalism?

Decision: The tax under the Social Security Act was constitutional because it was equal across all the states and did not force the states to do something in violation of the 10th amendment. The Court also said that because most people were in dire financial circumstances during the Great Depression, the Act and the tax were a legitimate way of counteracting those problems.

21st Amendment

Mae the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol legal by repealing the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

South Dakota v. Dole

Background: Congress enacted legislation that withheld federal highway funds from states that did not adopt a minimum drinking age of 21.

Question: Did Congress exceed its spending powers or violate the 21st Amendment by passing legislation making the award of federal highway funds dependent upon the states' adoption of a uniform minimum drinking age?

Decision: The legislation was constitutional because it was in pursuit of the general welfare and done through reasonable actions.

Which part of the government can regulate interstate commerce?

Which government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce in the United States quizlet?

Who regulates interstate and foreign trade?

What level of government has the power to regulate interstate trade?