Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Congressional Powers And Federalism Outline

Law Outlines > Constitutional Law: Fourteenth Amendment, Separation of Powers Outlines

This is an extract of our Congressional Powers And Federalism document, which we sell as part of our Constitutional Law: Fourteenth Amendment, Separation of Powers Outlines collection written by the top tier of Harvard Law School students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Constitutional Law: Fourteenth Amendment, Separation of Powers Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Congressional Powers and Federalism I: Commerce Interstate Commerce
?????Champion v. Ames
?????Shreveport Rate

Not Interstate Commerce
?????EC Knight
? Hammer (Overruled by Darby)

Early: Gibbons (First) -> Hammer (Narrow) -> Wickard (expansive) Late 19th Century until 1937: Narrow CC. 1937 - 1995: Rubber Stamp of Congress 1995 - 2000: Lopez and Morrison: Guns and VAWA invalidated. 2012: NFIB Early Commerce Clause Cases: What Happened from EC Knight -> Wickard?
? PROF: Consider but reject David Strauss' common law method of constitutional interpretation.
? Different tests applied: o Direct/Indirect o Production v. Commerce o When Interstate Commerce Stars/Ends (Schecter)
? Tests eroded over time (Shreveport Rate: Glimpse of world to come). Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
? Last of CJ Marshall's important decisions.
? Steamboat monopoly between NY and NJ.
? NY law invalidated under Commerce Clause, because Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce. US v. EC Knight (1895)
? Sugar Monopoly - Sherman Antitrust Act not apply to CC
? Manufacturing sugar not commerce.
? Harlan Dissent: Look at effects; broader conception of commerce. Champion v. Ames (1903)
? Shipping international lottery tickets across state lines CAN be regulated by CC.
? (Goods are dangerous, not the method of their manufacture) Shreveport Rate Cases (1914)
? Regulating rates of transportation internal to Texas not a violation of Commerce Clause - intertwined!
? How to reconcile with EC Knight and Hammer?
o Still regulating commerce, not production.

o Industries: Cotton or Sugar manufacturing local; Railroad transportation feels more like interstate commerce Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
? Federal law prohibits goods produced by child labor. CC the only hook able to justify the law?
? Justice Day: The interstate commerce involves transportation; the production is entirely intrastate. Invasion by federal government of a purely local matter. o (Contrast with the lottery, liquor, prostitution cases..)
? Holmes Dissents: Evil of child labor. Manufacturing part of commerce. Not requiring the state to do anything.
? Overruled in US v. Darby Lumber (1941) Schechter Poultry v. US (1935)
? National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) unconstitutional because regulating safety of chickens in Slaughterhouse not interstate commerce.
? The flow of Interstate Commerce had ceased.
? Note: Old distinctions beginning to erode. Direct/indirect on its last les. Carter v. Carter Coal (1936)
? Replay of EC Knight - Bituminous Coal Act replaced NIRA, trying to regulate mining industry.
? 5-4, Sutherland: Mining isn't commerce. Like manufacturing. "Every journey to a forbidden end begins with the first step."
? Cardozo Dissent: direct effect on interstate commerce
? (Compare to Wickard: Direct opposite regarding aggregation principle. Carter rejects aggregation principle)
[West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)
? Roberts' switch in time...
? Upholding Washington State's minimum wage law, overturning Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), and end of Lochner era.]
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937)
? Wagner Act (union/labor regulation) can be applied in this case to this company.
? J&L a massive multi-state corporation. "Close and substantial relation to interstate commerce" US v. Darby Lumber (1941)
? Minimum wage law.
? Last nail in the coffin of Commerce/Manufacture Distinction o Over Rule Hammer; Limited the application of Carter Coal o Does not say whether Hammer was wrongly decided on Day 1. o Instead, recent cases were unpleasant, returning to old doctrine. Wickard v. Filburn (1942): Expansive conception of commerce


Why the change?
o Dynamism of American constitutionalism. o Is it a change attributable to what commerce is changing, or change in perception of federalism?
Quota on wheat production; farmer grows for self/livestock. Change: Aggregation Principle. Combination of lots of trivial amounts affects economy. Rejects "production" or "direct/indirect" tests. (Could Wickard and Hammer be reconciled? Different markets...)

Civil Rights Cases (1883)
? Statute: Civil Rights Act of 1875, full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations.
? Question: Does 13/14A provide authority for this act? Did it reconfigure balance of power between state and fed gov't?
o 14A SS 5: Congress has power to enforce (also 13A SS2) o Unless state action, federal government not have power to regulate o 14A not speak to private actors. 13A does, but not implicated here.
? [PROF: could 13A have been stretched to include, given how far 14A is stretched?]
? [Note: Not CC case here, but used to justify later]
Congress withdraws from protecting civil rights from violations by private actors until after WWII. Possible constitutional basis for invalidating Civil Rights Act?
? 1A Freedom of Assembly and association
? 5A property right - taking without just compensation
? 14A EP: treating motel differently (treating racists differently?)
? 13A: Involuntary servitude. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)
? 75% of guests are out of state, and advertise out of state.
? Compare with Hammer (child labor) o Is Production/Services interstate commerce?
o Morality - but in very different times.
? Commerce Clause gives power to regulate hotel that affects interstate travelers, etc. Katzenbach v. McClung (Ollie's BBQ) (1964)
? Half of food purchased originated out-of-state
? While this restaurant has virtually no effect on interstate commerce, racial discrimination in restaurants in general does (aggregation principle - see Wickard, Gibbons, Darby).

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Constitutional Law: Fourteenth Amendment, Separation of Powers Outlines.