/wEPDwUKLTc4MT
ed
24229144
Week 2: Administrative Regulations - Discussion
Chapter 5, Problems 7 and 4 (graded)
Please study the problem found in e-book Chapter 5, problem 7, and answer the
following questions:
On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,
1. Can the statute survive a constitutional challenge?
2. Is there a "rational basis" for the statute?
3. What effect does the evidence to the contrary have on the statute's constitutionality?
We will also read and discuss Chapter 5 problem 4 in this thread, the Pike v. Bruce
Church case. Note that this case is available online, but heads-up! The U.S. Supreme
Court has overturned a significant part of it. We will talk about this and "judicial review"
during the week as well. Much to do!
Responses
Responses are listed below in the following order: response, author and the date and time the
response is posted.
Response
406367599,406776
Author
403006865
Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law
and
Constitutionality
Date/Time
0
Professor Devine
10/31/2012 9:23:32 AM
Class: We are working together this week to understand how constitutional protections protect
businesses from over-reaching by administrative regulations and statutes.
Remember, there are state laws and administrative agencies, and there are federal laws and
administrative agencies. They are not one in the same. Furthermore, there are state
constitutions and there is the federal Constitution. At times it can be difficult to determine which
law applies and in some cases both state and federal law may apply.
As background, click here for a diagram of how the U. S. federal court system is set up:
http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/
Click here for a diagram of how each state's court system is set up:
http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/Ct_Struct/Index.html
We will be considering the Clover Leaf and Pike cases this week. I also encourage you to check
out Problem 8 in Chapter 5 involving an Iowa statute, the Kassel case. Let's assume that the
statute proposed by Iowa directly conflicts with a federal statute. Which one would be
considered superior and where would the authority come from to support your answer?
As you answer this question, consider what standard the U. S. Supreme Court applies when
considering the constitutionality of a statute.
Ginger
406367599
403006865
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Latrice Donaldson
and
Constitutionality
11/6/2012 9:09:06 PM
Good evening Dr. Devine. After reading the case brief for
Kassel versus Consolidated Freightways Corporation, I think
that this case brief relates to the supremacy clause. The
supremacy clause is the “section of the United States
Constitution stating that the constitution is the “supreme law
of the land,” and no other laws will supersede it. The clause
was a departure from the previous federal system in the
United States, which was enacted under the Articles of the
Confederation. That system included a weak federal
government, and was later found to be impractical, which led
to the development of the United States Constitution and the
inclusion of this clause.” Now what does this mean in simpler
words? Well, from my interpretation, it (supremacy clause)
means that the federal laws usually have more control over
the state and local laws. This definition and reading of the
case brief details that the state of Iowa did not prove their
argument that the 65 foot trailers were more unsafe than the
55 foot trailers, which led to the state losing the case.
To respond to Dr. Devine’s reminder to “consider what
standards the U. S. Supreme Court apply when considering
the constitutionality of a statute”, it is stated that “this
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.” With this being said, I think that the
forefathers of the U.S. implemented these powerful words
because while under England, there were many issues, which
led to the separation and to prevent any changes that could
have come about after the break from England.
References:
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-supremacy-clause.htm
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/kassel.htm
http://www.edrivera.com/?p=834
406776950
403006865
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Carletta Jones
and
Constitutionality
11/7/2012 7:36:30 PM
In the chapter 5 problem 7, I believe the statue can indeed stand the constitutional
challenge because there no rational basis for the statue. It is clear from the reading
that the claim that the plastic nonreturnable, nonrefillable containers created more
waste and took up more space. The evidence proved that the claim invalid and not
true.
406758196,408839
406526930
403006865
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Jaye Ambrose
and
Constitutionality
11/7/2012 10:49:20 AM
Modified:11/7/2012 11:21 AM
After reviewing problem 8 in Chapter 5, I found that the federal
statue would be more superior to Iowa's statue.
The state of Iowa restricted the length of vehicles that could
use its highways to 55 feet. The average cab pulling two trailers
is 65 feet long and other states in the Midwest adopted the 65
foot long statue. A suit was brought against the state of Iowa
because the statue unconstitutionally burdens interstate
commerce. Iowa wouldn't allow 65 foot trailers on the interstate
but added an exemption to the statue where those same
trailers could go through the towns and cities along their
borders. Iowa tried to defend its law as a safety measure, but
could not provide accurate facts that indicated this to be true.
Therefore, it was found that Iowa's state law burdened
interstate commerce.
This website provided a good insight for Kassel v. Consolidated
Freightways Corporation of Delaware (No. 79-1320)
www.law.cornell.edu./supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0450_066
2_ZS.html
406758196
406526930
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law George Hagwood
and
Constitutionality
11/7/2012 7:09:21 PM
I believe that the founding fathers put the supremacy
clause in the constitution because they wanted the
new country to be different than what they had
encountered in England and did not want any others to
come behind them later and change the ways in which
they founded this country. Also, the founding fathers
wanted the states to have power outside of the federal
power, but wanted to establish that the federal law
would be interpreted as the highest law and would
trump state law if there was a conflict so that all of the
stated would be on one accord in a united fashion with
regards to how the federal system interpreted laws.
Article VI, Section II provides that
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall
be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithsta
408839373
406526930
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Chelsey Houwen
and
Constitutionality
11/11/2012 9:47:35 PM
I believe that we are suppose to discuss problem 7 of
chapter 5 not problem 8. However, this is interesting
information. I did not know there was certain length
for the trailers. But if a company has to ship
something to Iowa and the trailer is more that 65 feet;
what then?
406360192,406478
405007503
403006865
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Jamie Blea
and
Constitutionality
11/4/2012 9:16:05 AM
Chapter 5, problem 8. I think it goes back to the supremacy clause. That says when
state and local laws are in conflict with federal laws and etc. the federal ones are in
control of the sate and local law. However, in many cases it is ruled that state law does
not directly conflict wih federal law. In the Kassel Case, however, the state was not
able to prove that 65ft trailers were more unsafe the 55ft trailers and therefor lost the
case aaccording to casebriefs.com.
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-tostone/judicial-efforts-to-protect-the-expansion-of-the-market-against-assertions-oflocal-power/kassel-v-consolidated-freightways-corp/2/
Text. Chapter 5
406478933
406360192
405007503
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Edwin Scales
and
Constitutionality
11/6/2012 8:54:35 PM
#7
Minnesota does not have to comply specifically with legislative acts.
According to the Commerce Clause Congress can regulate commerce…with
the several states. Commerce disputes with sates and legislatures are
ultimately determined by lower courts and Supreme Court. The Rational
Basis is that a product should be allowed for purchase across state lines. This
can be confirmed with the equal protection clause. We can not sell the
product in one state and require that specific packaging sold in another due
to extra costs.
#4
Bruce has $700,000 of drying fruit. He is being told that to sell his produce
he must build a plant in Parker Arizona. This new plant would cost $200,000
and take months to complete. Congress would affirm that the legislature can
regulate commerce between states. Requiring another plant places undue
hardship on interstate commerce.
406478933
406360192
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Professor Devine
and
Constitutionality
Modified:11/7/2012 8:41 AM
11/7/2012 8:34:28 AM
Thanks for the detailed look at the Minnesota case in light of the
rational basis test. So, class, do you agree or disagree with Edwin's
conclusions about the Minnesota case?
In order to understand the role of the courts and how laws/statutes
are viewed in light of constitutional principles, we have to walk
through the three scrutiny tests: strict, intermediate, and rational
basis. So, as you read cases, keep an eye out for this language.
For those of you interested in constitutional law, here is an
outstanding summary of recent cases as they come down:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/ I encourage you all to
choose one of these cases--do you agree or disagree with the
decision based on what we are learning about constitutional law?
For example, there is one case considering a Minnesota campaign
finance law and another involving the Arizona immigration law and
its enforcement after the U. S. Supreme Court's ruling on its
constitutionality.
Ginger
405175503,405512
405012032
405007503
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Professor Devine
and
Constitutionality
11/4/2012 9:29:29 AM
Jamie: Great start to our Week 2 discussion. Why do you think our founding
fathers put the Supremacy Clause into place? What is its benefit to citizens?
Ginger
405512191,405629
405175503
405012032
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Antonia Whittler
and
Constitutionality
11/4/2012 3:55:56 PM
Prof. Devine’s resp to Jamie Blea: Jamie: Great start to our
Week 2 discussion. Why do you think our founding fathers
put the Supremacy Clause into place? What is its benefit to
citizens? Ginger
Prof. Devine and Jamie,
I believe that the founding fathers put the supremacy clause
in the constitution because they wanted the new country to
be different than what they had encountered in England and
did not want any others to come behind them later and
change the ways in which they founded this country. Also,
the founding fathers wanted the states to have power
outside of the federal power, but wanted to establish that
the federal law would be interpreted as the highest law and
would trump state law if there was a conflict so that all of
the stated would be on one accord in a united fashion with
regards to how the federal system interpreted laws.
Article VI, Section II provides that
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
Retrieved on November 4, 2012, from
http://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781133170624/pages/50462369.
This “supremacy” clause just goes to show that this law will
be the main law and that everyone should recognize it as
the supreme law, both federal and state judges.
405629063,405679
405512191
405175503
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Professor Devine
and
Constitutionality
11/5/2012 7:48:32
AM
Antonia: Thanks for jumping in here--you provided an
accurate historical perspective. Additionally, the
Supremacy Clause does create some consistency in the
law. For example, if conflicts between federal and state
laws were permitted, this creates uncertainty for citizens-do they follow the state or federal law? We actually do
have a few areas of the law where conflicts currently exist
and have not yet been decided by the U. S. Supreme
Court.
Class: Can you identify some of these areas/laws?
Ginger
405629063
405512191
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Garrett Jones
and
Constitutionality
11/5/2012 1:07:09
PM
As Antonia posted:
Article VI, Section II provides that This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law
of the Land; and the judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution or Laws of any State
to the Contrary notwithstanding.
To me these areas of law which fall into
the "grey area" where Federal Law has
not set a precedence based upon the
Constitution then State Law would be
able to adopt and implement laws and
regulations. One such area that comes to
mind for me is Education, each state has
their own state requirements both for
exams implementation as well as teacher
certification requirements. I am trying to
research more areas that affect business
directly but the best example I could
think of is Federal Law preventing
discrimination based upon race or gender
but no Federal Law that stipulates that
employers can't take into account prior
criminal record.
405679860
405512191
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Jamie Blea
and
Constitutionality
11/5/2012 3:14:29
PM
In addition to Garrett's grey area of education.
The ones I can think of are possibly immigration,
marriage laws, and workplace safety laws.
Currently southwest states and Florida are
having difficulty with immigration and law is
grey from state to state.
406036102
405763735
405512191
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Antonia Whittler
and
Constitutionality
11/5/2012 5:56:17
PM
Prof. Devine resp to Antonia: Thanks for jumping in here-you provided an accurate historical perspective.
Additionally, the Supremacy Clause does create some
consistency in the law. For example, if conflicts between
federal and state laws were permitted, this creates
uncertainty for citizens--do they follow the state or
federal law? We actually do have a few areas of the law
where conflicts currently exist and have not yet been
decided by the U. S. Supreme Court. Class: Can you
identify some of these areas/laws?- Ginger
Prof. Devine and class,
Yes, gay marriage is a big conflict that has yet to be
decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, but they will have
the opportunity to grant certiorari this term if they so
choose. To date seven states in the United States have
legalized gay marriage – Connecticut, Indiana,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont,
Washington, as well as the District of Columbia.
Maryland has passed the statute also that will be
effective January 1, 2012. Retrieved on November 5,
2012 from www.gaymarriage.procon.org
It is interesting to note that citizens in some states are
determining whether or not they should ban same sex
marriages as did California voters with the noteworthy
Prop 8 ban, which has led this issue straight to the
United States Supreme Court.
I would agree that immigration is also an area with
conflicts existing between the states and the federal
government. It appears that most states that have a
significant amount of illegal aliens are deciding to enact
severe immigration laws. For example, Arizona enacted
such a law in which the United States Supreme Court
split their decision on pieces of the legislation. Other
states have also decided to pass similar laws – Alabama,
Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah. “The
Supreme Court’s split ruling Monday on Arizona’s
controversial immigration law did nothing to settle the
debate – providing little clarity on how far states can go
to police their borders and solidifying the topic as a key
election-year issue.” Retrieved from
www.usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/201206-52/supreme-court-arizona-immigration-rulinganalysis/55825582/1. Thus, the immigration issue will be
back before the Court soon.
406036102
405763735
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law
and
Professor Devine
11/6/2012
7:43:21 AM
Constitutionality
You all have identified several "hot
topics" that fall within our discussion of
the Supremacy Clause. There is
currently a conflict among federal law
(the Defense of Marriage Act) and the
state laws related to gay marriage and
state constitutional bans on gay
marriage. This issue is expected to
reach the U. S. Supreme Court within
the year.
Ginger
405770438
405512191
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Conne Mcclure
and
Constitutionality
11/5/2012 6:06:16
PM
There is a case that Supreme Court is currently hearing
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, the question
purposed to court is "Whether a floating structure that is
indefinitely moored receives power and other utilities from
shore and is not intended to be used in maritime
transportation or commerce constitutes a "vessel" under 1
U.S.C. § 3, thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction."
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/11626.html . The court is to determine if the vessels fall under
state or federal jurisdiction based on the location of the
vessel. This could be classifed in the Supremacy Clause due
to court determining which laws the vessels fall under.
405984117
405512191
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Julie Hicks
and
Constitutionality
11/5/2012
11:44:09 PM
Prof. Some of the areas that I can identify will
be in the area of Sherman Antitrust Act. In the
case involving market giant Standard Oil, the
Supreme Court declared that the purpose of the
Sherman Antitrust Act is to prevent “monopoly
and the acts which produce the same result as
monopoly.” The Constitution’s Supremacy
Clause, in turn, requires pre-emption of state
laws that conflict with a federal statute. These
propositions suggest that state laws which
create monopolies should be prime candidates
for pre-emption via the Sherman Act. But
despite this, monopoly-creating state laws have
easily weathered most federal antitrust
challenges, even when the state does not
regulate the price the monopolist charges. The
reason is that the Supreme Court’s antitrust
decisions on state economic regulation have
consistently confused two distinct questions:
whether market conduct encouraged by state
law violates the Sherman Act, and whether state
law conflicts with the Sherman Act and thus is
pre-empted. This confusion explains other
problems in the Court’s antitrust jurisprudence,
including the Court’s inability to make sense of
antitrust claims against municipalities acting as
lawmakers rather than market participants
Although the Supreme Court has held that the
Sherman Act’s overarching purpose is to prevent
“monopoly and the acts which produce the same
result as monopoly,” the Court has never struck
down a state law on antitrust grounds for
making a monopoly.
References:
Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1,
61 (1911).
ANTITRUST AND THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE. By:
Squire, Richard. Stanford Law Review. Oct2006,
Vol. 59 Issue 1, p77-132. 56p.
406479968,408273
406450781
405512191
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Latrice Donaldson
and
Constitutionality
11/7/2012 6:47:35
AM
Modified:11/7/2012 6:50 AM
Good morning Dr. Devine. To identify
some of the areas/laws where conflicts
currently exist and have not yet been
decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, I will
say that the same sex marriage would be
considered an area. I found an article at
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/us/scotussame-sex-marriage/index.html, which details
that the U.S. Supreme Court may hear the
constitutional challenge to a federal law
denying any financial benefits to
gay/lesbian couples. I chose this particle
article because of the publicity that the
topic has received over the years and the
fact that more and more individuals have
evolved in their life and are no longer
attempting to hide their sexuality. From a
personal standpoint, I do not oppose same
sex marriage; an individual cannot help
who they have fallen in love with and it is
their business as to the relationship that
they have with God; not mine, so why
should I judge them.
Reference:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/us/scotussame-sex-marriage/index.html
408273798,408461
406479968
406450781
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Professor Devine
and
Constitutionality
11/7/2012
8:37:56 AM
Latrice: The issue of same sex
marriage definitely falls within this
week's discussion, as there are
conflicts between federal law (the
Defense of Marriage Act) and state
laws around the country. This issue
may be decided within the year (or so)
at the Supreme Court level.
If we look at the Loving v. Virginia
case as precedent
(http://www.oyez.org/cases/19601969/1966/1966_395), how do you all
think the issue will be decided?
Technically, the DOMA Act would
prevail under the Supremacy Clause.
However, in Loving there was no
federal law at the time, and the Court
looked at other constitutional issues
involved.
Ginger
408461855
408273798
406479968
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Linda Sue Martin
and
Constitutionality
11/10/2012
8:44:53 PM
With the current
authority on the issue at
the State level, than the
State should be the one
setting the rules. The
rules being decided by
the voters. I've moved
around the country many
times during my life and
I have always been
amazed by the difference
in cultures in the various
regions of our country. I
think it is good to allow
the States to decide
these issues. The people
in the area should be the
one governing their
culture or environment.
And those of us outside
the region should be able
to respect their choices
even if they different
from ours. This is after
all America the home of
the brave and free.
What's braver than
respecting other's
freedom of choice?
408461855
408273798
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Professor Devine
and
Constitutionality
11/11/2012
10:36:39 AM
Linda: It is
interesting to
consider cultural
and regional
differences in our
country based on
its sheer size,
urban and rural
differences,
geography, etc.
Ginger
407078244,407461
406992927
406479968
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Julie Hicks
and
Constitutionality
11/8/2012
9:00:08 AM
Same-sex marriage is now
legal in six states, and tens
of thousands of same-sex
couples have already gotten
married. Yet the vast
majority of other states have
adopted statutes or
constitutional amendments
banning same-sex marriage.
These mini-defense of
marriage acts not only forbid
the creation of same-sex
marriages but they also
purport to void or deny
recognition to the perfectly
valid same-sex marriages of
couples who migrate from
states where such marriages
are legal. These
nonrecognition laws
effectively transform the
marital parties into legal
strangers, causing significant
harms. Property rights are
potentially altered, spouses
disinherited, children put at
risk, and financial,
medical,and personal plans
and decisions thrown into
turmoil. To deal with existing
same-sex marriages
rationally and fairly, it is
appropriate to tum to the
Constitution - "The right of
marriage recognition". The
right of marriage recognition
would not force any state to
create a same-sex marriage,
but it would prevent them
from inflicting unjustified
harms on migratory couples.
407461438,407542
407078244
406992927
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Professor Devine
and
Constitutionality
11/8/2012
12:28:07 PM
If we consider the
same sex marriage
issue, what are the
possible
constitutional
challenges? Equal
Protection?
Supremacy? Full
Faith and Credit?
Ginger
407542625
407461438
407078244
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Julie Hicks
and
Constitutionality
11/9/2012
3:47:32 AM
Full Faith
and
Credit.
This
clause
says that
every
state
must
recognize
and
respect
the laws
and
judgments
of other
states. It
would
apply to
same-sex
marriage
by forcing
every
state to
recognize
same-sex
marriages
legally
performed
in other
states.
407542625
407461438
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Professor Devine
and
Constitutionality
11/9/2012
9:52:31 AM
Right,
Julie.
Typically,
one law
will
respect
the law
of
another
state
with
respect
to issues
such as
driver's
licenses,
marriage,
etc.
Ginger
407543640,408770
407235494
406450781
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law
and
Conne Mcclure
11/8/2012
6:02:30 PM
Constitutionality
Latrice I agree with your points and
your view. Our current President
believe this should be handle at the
state level and put up to vote of the
people. On November 6, gay marriage
became legal in two states by popular
vote. I am curious if the court will
hand it back to the state.
407543640
407235494
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Professor Devine
and
Constitutionality
11/9/2012
9:55:12 AM
Conne: This is a possibility-the Court could determine
that the issue of marriage is
left to the states to regulate.
It will be interesting to see if
it relies on or distinguishes
the Loving v. Virginia case
related to interracial
marriage.
Ginger
408770173
407235494
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Jair Isaza
and
Constitutionality
11/11/2012
8:12:00 PM
I think as a result of the two
Maine and
Maryland) voting for same
states (
sex marriage others will
follow, normally this has
been the trend, there are
already national registries
and petitions while 6 states
and the district of Columbia
have legalized same sex
marriage either through court
decisions or legislative
decisions and voters continue
to rejected as a matter of
fact more than 30 times.
407229234
405512191
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 -
Christopher Nordone
11/8/2012 5:52:45
PM
Sources of Law
and
Constitutionality
In keeping with current events, during the
election on Tuesday, the legalization of
marijuana for recreational use was voted on and
approved for the first time in the state of
Colorado. This directly conflicts with federal law
which does not permit the use of marijuana for
recreational use and the legality of medical
marijuana is debated widely. The legalization for
recreational use causes a huge dent in the war
on drugs and potentially opens the door for
more states to attempt to legalize recreational
marijuana and challenge the federal law of
making it an illegal substance.
407402792
405512191
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Carletta Jones
and
Constitutionality
11/8/2012
10:05:17 PM
It is well known that there are areas that the
state and federal law conflict and yet not
decided upon, however the federal law is known
to be the law of the land, However in area of
taxes and tribes the federal law has more power
over state laws.
The United States passes a law promising to
preserve and to protect Indian tribes. State B
wants to tax Indian tribes located within its
state. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.,
State B may not tax a federally recognized
Indian tribe since doing so would violate the
tribe's political interest in which the U.S. has
promised to protect.
http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/thesupremacy-clause-and-the-doctrine-ofpreemption.html
407953343
407736589
405012032
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law
George Hagwood
and
Constitutionality
11/9/2012 6:14:24 PM
The Founding Fathers were very smart in putting together the
Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), to resolve conflicts
between Federal and State law. The Supreme Court held that
Federal law preempts State law when it comes to immigration with
one exception. The Supreme Court vote was 8 to 0, on the so called
“Show your papers” ruling. This gives the States the right to ask for
a person’s papers when stopped for another offense. But, again
playing politics, the Obama administration said they will deal with
this only when there have been major crimes and ended any 287(g)
task force/partnership agreements with state law enforcement.
http://www.leerepublicanwomen.com/?cat=7
407953343
407736589
RE: Week 2 Discussion 1 Sources of Law Professor Devine
and
Constitutionality
11/10/2012 9:19:58
AM
George: It is this type of informal policy that causes
uncertainy for citizens, similar to the medical marijuana
laws and the administration's statement that it will not
enforce drug laws that conflict.
Ginger
405812103,406006
404969889
0
Chap 5
Problem 7 Conne Mcclure
11/4/2012 7:08:26 AM
1. Yes a statue can survive constitutional challenge. It is up to the US Supreme Court to decide
if a statue is unconstitutional.
2. I can see both sides but for discussion I will say Yes, the statue can survive the rational basis
test. This test is the the 14 amendment is the protection of due process and equal protection.
3. The evidence could lead to the US Supreme Court stating that the statue is unconstitutional.
They could also recommend to the state to rewrite the statue to include all plastic unreuseable
bottles.
406006308,406813
405812103
404969889
RE:
Chap 5
Problem
7
Blanche Meriweather
11/5/2012 7:02:38 PM
Great points;
just like equal justices laws, these rights are for employees to have freedom and
privileges to work in the united states.
406813960,407079
406006308
405812103
RE:
Chap 5
Problem Conne Mcclure
7
11/6/2012 3:58:09 AM
True employees have rights just as companies do not to be excluded by the
statue only affectly plactic milk jugs.
407079041
406813960
406006308
RE:
Chap 5
Problem Gail Hatcher
7
11/7/2012 8:29:43 PM
Conne, those are very excellent points. The commerce clause is for
the sole purpose of regulating interstate commerce, but these sales
only involved intrastate commerce.
407079041
406813960
RE:
Chap 5
Problem Professor Devine
7
11/8/2012 12:29:52 PM
We are looking at recent cases involving the Commerce
Clause, but how far does the federal government's
interstate commerce power extend? Check out this
historical case--right or wrong decision and why?
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59
Ginger
406036791,406323
405817648
0
Chapter
5,
Joseph Waldrup
Problem 7
11/5/2012 7:09:50 PM
1. Can the statute survive a constitutional challenge?
2. Is there a "rational basis" for the statute?
3. What effect does the evidence to the contrary have on the
statute's constitutionality?
1. Yes, the statue can survive a constitutional challenge.
2. There is a "rational basis" for the statute. Although parties challenging
legislation under the Equal Protection Clause may introduce evidence supporting
their claim that it is irrational, they cannot prevail so long as it is evident
from all the considerations presented to the legislature, and those of which we
may take judicial notice, that the question is at least debatable.
3. States are not required to convince the courts of the correctness of their
legislative judgments. Rather, those challenging the legislative judgment must
convince the court that the legislative facts on which the classification is
apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental
decision maker.
406323725,406046
406036791
405817648
RE:
Chapter
5,
Problem
7
Professor Devine
11/6/2012 7:45:51 AM
Joseph: Good mention of the rational basis test, which is one of the scrutiny tests
applied by the courts in assessing the constitutionality of statutes. What are the other
tests and when do they apply?
Ginger
406323725
406036791
RE:
Chapter
5,
Blanche Meriweather
Problem
7
11/6/2012 7:48:13 PM
Professor;
Vagueness its a due process vice which can be brought into play with regard
to any criminal and may civil statutes but, as applied in areas respecting
expression it also encompasses concern that protected conduct will be
deterred out of fear that the statute is capable of application to it. Vagueness
has been the basis for voiding numerous such laws, especially in the field of
loyalty oaths, obscenity and in decency, and restrictions on public
demonstrations.
406046938
406036791
RE:
Chapter
5,
Garrett Jones
Problem
7
11/6/2012 8:22:57 AM
Wouldn't the other tests be strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny?
Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of judicial review used to examine the
constitutionality of a law or regulation. The Intermediate Scrutiny test is the
next level of test higher than the Rational Basis test discussed by Joseph.
Strict Scrutiny is the standard used to determine whether a classification of a
group of people or a fundamental right violates due process and equal
protection rights under the United States Constitution.
406480423,407186
406351242
406036791
RE:
Chapter
5,
Julie Hicks
Problem
7
11/6/2012 8:37:35 PM
Courts use one of two tests to assess the constitutionality of statutes: the
strict scrutiny test or the rational basis test. Strict scrutiny test is applied
when the law restricts the exercise of a fundamental right. Under the strict
scrutiny test, a statute withstands a substantive due process challenge only if
the state identifies a compelling state interest that is advanced by a statute.
That is even if the government has a state interest that rises to the level of
being compelling, if there is a less restrictive way to advance it, the statute
fails this test. For example in roe v. wade 410 U.S. 113 93 S. Ct. 705 35 L.
Ed. 2d 147 (1973) the state interest in protecting unborn children was not
compelling enough to overcome a woman's right to privacy. When the state
interest is not sufficiently compelling the law is struck down as
unconstitutional.
407186350
406480423
406351242
RE:
Chapter
5,
Professor Devine
Problem
7
11/7/2012 8:39:17 AM
Garrett, Julie, and Blanche: I was looking here for discussion of the
three scrutiny tests by which courts assess the constitutionality of
laws. However, as Blanche points out, a law can also be struck
down if it is too vague.
Ginger
407186350
406480423
RE:
Chapter
5,
Jaye Ambrose
Problem
7
11/8/2012 4:38:13 PM
Professor,
I also agree that laws can be struck down if they
are too vague.
For example, according to USLegal vagrancy laws
have come under constitutional attack, since
being poor is not a crime under the constitution.
The statutory language was held to be vague in
violation of due process requirement of the 14th
Amendment. A vagrancy law might be declared
too vague if the definition of a vagrant is not
detailed enough. Police had too much discretion
to arrest people based upon appearance. and
suspicious characteristics.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/vagrancy/
408090762
406036791
RE:
Chapter
5,
Michael Como
Problem
7
11/10/2012 3:03:59 PM
The other tests are the strict scrutiny and middle tier scrutiny tests. Strict
scrutiny is when the government has to show a compelling state interest and
the statue is necessary to serve that interest. The middle tier scrutiny test is
when the government has to show it is important to a state interest and it is
at least substantially related.
Here is a link to a website that I found that goes in more detail.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm
406308292,406359
405925905
Re: Week 2:
Administrative
Regulations
0
Natia Wilkins
11/5/2012 9:34:54 PM
On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,
1. Can the statute survive a constitutional challenge?
I believe that the statue can survive a constitutional challenge. As stated in the
question, Minnesota Legislature enacted the statute to help control the amount of
waste that being produced due the use of the plastic containers milk was being
sold in. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that the production and
use of the containers was the opposite of what the legislature thought.
2. Is there a "rational basis" for the statute?
Yes, there is a rational basis for the statue. The Minnesota Legislature was trying
to keep the waste down or the costs down and use the money the that would've
been saved for some thing else but, it seems that they did not do much research
because the state's supreme court found otherwise.
3. What effect does the evidence to the contrary have on the statute's
constitutionality?
I believe that maybe the evidence will cause future statutes to go through the
supreme court to make sure that nothing has not been researched first.
406359808
406308292
405925905
RE: Re: Week
2:
Administrative
Regulations
Anthony Fletcher
11/6/2012 7:22:27 PM
I agree with what others have said up to this point and find no reason to
repeat it all. I would like to add a few things though.
I agree with Minnesota Legislature's statute to ban the use of nonreusable and non-refillable milk containers for the sole purpose of cutting
down on waste, as plastic does take longer than paperboard to
decompose. The logic behind the statute is there, and it is an
environmentally friendly statute created during a time when protecting
the environment started to become important in the eyes of the country.
The Equal Protection Clause also does not deny Minnesota Legislature
from banning a container for environmental purposes. However, the
statute does not offer any sort of environmentally-friendly alternative that
would be similar the minimal cost of using plastic milk containers.
Furthermore, while the plastic containers may take longer to decompose,
the Minnesota Supreme Court found that they actually take up less space
and create less waste overall compared to the paperboard containers.
Below is an article going into further detail the U.S. Supreme Court's
findings. Feel free to read!
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/449/456/
406359808
406308292
RE: Re: Week
2:
Administrative Joseph Waldrup
Regulations
11/6/2012 8:53:51 PM
Very well said Anthony. I do believe an alternate means that was
environmental friendly would have been favored in this case. The State’s law
that restricted the type of packaging milk companies could use, was upheld
as a valid environmental protection method. The legislation was not facially
discriminatory. The Commerce Clause required the state to use the least
restrictive restraints on interstate commerce to achieve a legitimate
environmental goal. The legislation’s benefits outweighed its discriminatory
effects.
406116074
U.S.
Supreme
Court
0
Bryan Anderson
11/6/2012 11:48:37 AM
1. Statute survive a Constitutional Change
I believe that a statute can survive a constitutional change. However if the amendment is altered to a point in which it
makes a particular statues unconstitutional then the statue may have to be altered in a way that would make it once
again constitutional.
2. Is the rationale basis for the statute?
I believe that the Supreme Court had everyone’s best interest in mind when they released the statute making it illegal to
place milk in plastic containers. They probably went off of the information available at the time and possible even listen
to a so called expert in the field. The information just proved to be false.
3. What effect does the evidence have on the statutes constitutionality?
Well obviously this particular statute would have to dissolve. If the evidence presented proves the best points of the
statute are inaccurate then I see no way that the statute is allowed to remain in place. The evidence presented clearly
disproves earlier remarks that it takes up too much space in the dump. I believe that the Supreme Court had the best
interested of the citizens in mind when they created the statute, however they may have created the statute without all
of the information available.
406562394
406328441
0
Administrative
Regulations
Latrice Donaldson
11/6/2012 7:56:28 PM
1. Can the statute survive a constitutional challenge?
After reading the 1977 Minnesota statute, I am leaning toward
saying yes in regards to the statute being able to survive a
constitutional challenge. What can Congress place regulations on is
the question. Well, Congress can only regulate interstate commerce
(“commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or
transportation from one state to another, regulated by the federal
government according to powers spelled out in Article I of the
Constitution. The federal government can also regulate commerce
within a state when it may impact interstate movement of goods
and services”), which is more commonly known as the Commerce
Clause. The Commerce Clause “refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the
U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and
with the Indian tribes.” The Constitution enumerates certain powers
for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that
any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are
reserved for the states.” With this being said, the sale of milk in
paperboard cartons versus plastic containers is the state of
Minnesota’s intrastate commerce (“the buying and selling of products and
services within a single state”).
2. Is there a "rational basis" for the statute?
The state of Minnesota wanted to get a grip on the waste due to the
plastic milk containers and eliminate the amount of space that was
being consumed, but the Supreme Court had other views in regards
to the amount of space that plastic milk containers consumed and
the amount of energy it took to produce the plastic containers; now
if I am interpreting my reading correctly, there is no rational basis
for this statute.
3. What effect does the evidence to the contrary have on the
statute's constitutionality?
According to the U.S. Supreme Court Media Oyez, “Justice William J.
Brennan Jr. maintained that Minnesota's statute was not
unconstitutional, acknowledging that the legislature had an interest
in promoting resource conservation and resolving solid waste
disposal issues. The difference between non-reusable plastic
containers and paper or reusable plastic containers was "rationally
related" to the legislature's purpose, and therefore not
unconstitutional under the rational basis test set forth in New
Orleans v. Dukes. The statute banned sale of all milk in the specified
containers and did not distinguish by seller, and therefore did not
violate the commerce clause.”
References:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1171
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/interstate+commerce
http://www.investorwords.com/2585/intrastate_commerce.html
406562394
406328441
RE:
Administrative Bryan Anderson
Regulations
11/7/2012 12:18:42 PM
Latrice, great post. It was so convincing that you’ve changed my mind regarding my post. I also agree with
you that the State of Minnesota did have a “rational basis” for the statute but the basis just happened to be
wrong. I would say this, the State of Minnesota did act hastily in this matter and should have conducted
more research prior to passing the statute. Had the State of Minnesota brought in several solid waste
experts or looked outside their borders to neighboring states, they may have been able to obtain better,
more accurate information regarding the impact of plastic containers on landfills. This information would
have probably negated the need to create a statute in the first place. It would appear as though Minnesota
will have to find other means of landfill reduction.
408851126
406405850
0
Chapter 5,
problem 7 Michael Como
11/6/2012 10:55:07 PM
Based on what I see, I do not think the statue could survive a constitutional challenge. I think
what the Minnesota Supreme Court came back with proves there is not a rational basis for the
statue. I do not see the need for disparate treatment when they produced evidence to the
contrary that the jugs took up less space and produced less energy to make. Clover Leaf
Creamery has a right to treatment that is equal and there is no proof provided that the statue is
correct. When the evidence they provided was disproved, I think it takes away the ability for the
challenge.
408851126
RE:
Chapter
5,
problem
7
406405850
Chelsey Houwen
11/11/2012 10:05:36 PM
It does take away the ability for a challenge. They said the
container takes up space and produces less energy to make.
I think it leads back to saving money, time, and energy. That
is possible one reason why they try to get their statue pass.
However, I still see individuals purchasing plastic and
paperboard milk containers. Were they trying to pass this
statue for themselves. customers, or world's well being?
407305870,407479
406477541
0
Is the
Constitution
Professor Devine
Still Relevant?
11/7/2012 8:30:02 AM
Some have questioned whether the U. S. Constitution is still relevant....
In recent years, a publisher put out a disclaimer with the U. S. Constitution:
See: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/publishing-company-putting-warning-labelconstitution/
Do you all agree with the disclaimer that "This book is a product of its time and does not
reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to
discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and
interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing
them to read this classic work."
Does our U. S. Constitution (and state constitutions) still matter?
Did you know that in addition to the U. S. Constitution, each state has its own constitution?
Have you ever read your state's Constitution? You will find a vast difference among the state
constitutions, including some interesting clauses. Locate your state's constitution and share an
interesting fact with the class.
Ginger
407305870
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Antonia Whittler
11/8/2012 7:42:06 PM
Prof. Devine and class,
Yes, both the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions still matter.
Yes, I knew that in addition to the U.S. Constitution each state has its
own constitution. I was born and raised in Michigan, where I have my
license to practice law. Yes, I have read the State of Michigan’s
Constitution. I have resided in Virginia for the past six years, as well as
attended my undergraduate college here and have never had an
inclination to read its constitution so I will look at it for this discussion
question. I am sure there are many interesting things in this
constitution because it is a commonwealth.
Article IV. Section 9. Immunity of legislators.
Members of the General Assembly shall, in all cases except treason,
felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the
sessions of their respective houses; and for any speech or debate in
either house shall not be questioned in any other place. They shall not
be subject to arrest under any civil process during the sessions of the
General Assembly, or during the fifteen days before the beginning or
after the ending of any session.
Retrieved on November 8, 2012 from
www.law.justia.com/constitution/virginia/constitution.html#5S12.
This is
interesting because they are given special treatment in the
Constitution because they cannot be arrested just because the
General Assembly is in session or is about to begin in fifteen days or
has just ended within the last fifteen days. They should be able to be
arrested at all times for all criminal acts and not be given special
treatment because of their status, unless the crime is treason, a
felony, or breach of the peace.
407479224
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Anthony Fletcher
11/9/2012 6:38:04 AM
No, I have not personally read the Illinois State Constitution. Yes I live in
Illinois, and I was able to find a very interesting law in the state of Illinois
that was worth sharing with the class. This law, called the Slavery Era
Ordinance Disclosure, states that all businesses entering into contracts
with the city of Chicago must sift through their records and report any
business they had dealing with slaves during the era of slaver.
http://www.dumblaws.com/law/1402
While I understand the purpose of the law and why it would have been
relevant for a few decades after slavery ended, I do not think it is
relevant or necessary today. That being said, the state of Illinois could
not simply update and remove this Disclosure, because of the public
outcry it would create. It would be interesting to know how many
companies actually still exist from that time period that still operate and
create contracts in Chicago.
407754194
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Jaye Ambrose
11/9/2012 6:53:00 PM
Yes, the U.S. Constitution still matters because every law must be
constitutional and these laws tend to work for everyone. I was aware that
every state had its own set of laws but I was not fully aware that every
state had its own constitution. I live in the state of Louisiana and
Louisiana is known for its rights to bear arms.
Clause
Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall
not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage
of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the
person. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1974).
Louisiana has the right to bear arms and voters in the state approved an
amendment to the state constitution that strengthened the right to bear
arms. Louisiana has the most gun rights of any state.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2956606/posts
www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
407954057,408327
407800281
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Bryan Anderson
11/9/2012 8:29:04 PM
Ohio State Constitution 9.04 Power of the Govenor to call forth Militia The governor
shall have power to call forth militia, to execute the laws of the state, to suppress
insurrection, to repel invasion and to act in the event of a disaster within the state.
Yes, The U.S. and State Constitutions are still relevant today. I believe these
documents are the guideposts by which we govern. I believe that some individuals that
believe that the documents are outdated do so because they pay to much attention to
the terms and not to what is to be interpreted. In the above article from the Ohio State
Constitution, the term "militia" is used. Some individuals may interpret the term militia
with negative feelings. However what i believe is to be interpreted from this term is the
fact that during a state emergency, the governor will use at his disposal, the National
Guard and Reserve Units to assist in matters of insurrection, invasion and disaster.
408327534,408462
407954057
407800281
RE: Is the
Constitution
Professor Devine
Still
Relevant?
11/10/2012 9:22:01 AM
Interestingly, a number of states have added a constitutional right to hunt
and fish in recent years. Any thoughts about why these would be added to
the state constitutions?
Ginger
408462637,408593
408327534
407954057
RE: Is the
Constitution
Dana Smicklas
Still
Relevant?
11/10/2012 10:18:44 PM
I believe the main reason states allow hunting is because of
population control. For instance, in Illinois, certain areas are opened
up to deer hunting that are normally not areas where you can hunt
deer. As I mentioned, they do this to control the population so that
the animals do not starve due to overcrowding.
Personally, I am against this type of regulation. I think the
relocating the animals to a less densly populated area would be
better for them, but that would cost the state money and the state
of Illinois is broke.
below is an article in regards to this very issue near where I live:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-19/news/ct-x-s-0319deer-hunting-program-20100319_1_deer-hunting-deer-issuecounty-forest-preserve-district
408593288,408718
408462637
408327534
RE: Is the
Constitution
Professor Devine
Still
Relevant?
11/11/2012 10:38:51
AM
Dana: Good points. I was more interested in why citizens
of some states believe a constitutional amendment
permitting hunting is required.
Ginger
408718435
408593288
408462637
RE: Is the
Constitution
Anthony Fletcher
Still
Relevant?
11/11/2012 3:44:01
PM
I personally think citizens of some states
believe a constitutional amendment
permitting hunting is required because of
over hunting as well as illegal trespassing
for hunting. I, along with Dana, also live
in Illinois and do participate in seasonal
whitetail hunting. I drive from the
Chicago suburbs down to central Illinois
to hunt, where my parents live. In
Illinois, the two popular hunting seasons
are bow season and shotgun season.
Shotgun season is only open for two
separate weekends, mostly to prevent
over harvesting because legal e it is
easier to hunt with a shotgun than a
bow. State laws and amendments allow
hunters to hunt during specified seasons
to prevent over harvesting. If laws
weren't put in place, you would see the
whitetail deer population drop
dramatically.
408718435
408593288
RE: Is the
Constitution
Christopher Nordone
Still
Relevant?
11/11/2012
7:03:06 PM
I agree with you Anthony about
including regulations on hunting in
order to prevent over hunting and
ensuring that animal populations do
not become too thin because of over
hunting. Aside from being able to bring
an animal to near extinction (such as
what happened to the buffalo) it can
also completely throw off an
ecosystem and make it unbalanced.
You over hunt a certain animal that is
maybe the main food source for
another animal and now that affects
how well the other animal can survive.
I think the trespassing point is
particularly interesting and one that I
didn't consider. If there weren't laws
and regulations on hunting seasons
and animal populations start dropping,
private property can become a bit of a
safe haven for animals. As the
populations drop and hunters become
more desperate to hunt they may be
more willing to illegally hunt on
another person's land which could also
cause all sorts of safety issues for the
hunter as well as the land owner who
may try to protect their land.
408329274
407587733
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Kim Ornder
11/9/2012 11:49:32 AM
I did know that individual state's had their own constitution but I was a little surprised
with myself for never having read it. The point that I found interesting was how clear
the section was on keeping state funds seperate, it was under the section of
Education;
"SECTION 3. PUBLIC FUNDS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES FORBIDDEN
Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or
other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public
fund whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support
or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or
scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor
shall any grant or donation of land, money, or other personal property ever be made
by the State, or any such public corporation, to any church, or for any sectarian
purpose"
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm
Growing up in Chicago, it feels like every other school is a Catholic school and while of
course I don't know the level to which funding or donations were exchanged the
schools always seemed very tied into community/government groups, politicians and
local events.
408329274
407587733
RE: Is the
Constitution
Dana Smicklas
Still
Relevant?
11/10/2012 10:22:15 PM
Kim,
First, let me say that it's nice to be in a class with a fellow Chicagoean. :)
The schools in Chicago are very tied to government because it is an
extremely unionized state and therefore the teachers union has always
played nice with politicians.
406919559
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Linda Sue Martin
11/8/2012 12:29:54 AM
Modified:11/8/2012 12:34 AM
I'm from California and our state constitution seems as long as the state itself. One
interesting topic found in the constitution pertains to the military. Article VII Sec. 3
states: "The governor shall have power to call forth the militia, to execute the laws of
the State, to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." There is also a section in
Article I that relates to the militia. In this section it states the military shall be
subordinate to the civil power. But it state that no standing army should be kept in the
state during peace time. This does appear to be in contrast to Sec 3 to use the military
to suppress insurrections. The assumption could be made that an insurrection would
happen between citizens and not a foreign power, likewise the insurrection will happen
during a time of peace not war. Can an army suppress citizens' uprising during peace
time without actually being in the state?
The most humorous is Article XII Sec. 15 which states: "Until the Legislature shall
otherwise direct, in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the salary of
the Governor shall be ten thousand dollars per annum; and the salary of the
Lieutenant–Governor shall be double the pay of a State senator; and the pay of
members of the Legislature shall be sixteen dollars per diem, while in attendance, and
sixteen dollars for every twenty miles travel by the usual route from their residences,
to the place of holding the session of the Legislature, and in returning therefrom. And
the Legislature shall fix the salaries of all officers, other than those elected by the
people, at the first election." I wonder if the governor really gets just $10,000. The
dollar amount actually appearing in the document does seam a bit unusual.
Source: http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1849/full-text.htm
406927788
406477541
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
Latrice Donaldson
11/8/2012 2:44:00 AM
Modified:11/8/2012 3:15 AM
Good morning Dr. Devine. This topic could be controversial for some, but from my
standpoint, the U.S. Constitution is more important now than it was when it was
drafted. I have heard some individuals state that the Constitution was out-dated and
did not have much relevancy in what issues we may have occurring, but I beg to differ.
To address the Constitution being out-dated, the Constitution has had several
amendments done since 1787. Had the Constitution not been written, the world that
we live in would be hell. Afro-Americans would still be living as slaves, nor would we
have any voting rights; women would still be viewed as merely homemakers and childbearing machines;we would not have freedom of speech, the list goes on and on. I
emphatically feel that the U.S. Constitution is definitely still relevant and just as
important today as it was over 200 years ago. The interesting fact that I would like to
share with the class is that the State of Georgia did not adopt a new constitution until
July 1, 1983. Now that may not seem interesting, but Georgia was the 4th of the
original 13 colonies, which makes it fascinating that the State of Georgia adopted its
first constitution in 1777 and has adopted a total of ten constitutions since being
declared a state. We can all agree that our world has evolved over the years and it will
continue to do so; the constitutions for any state, as well as the United States of
America, will grow and change accordingly. References:
http://old.newstimes.augusta.com/stories/2011/01/12/opi_601857.shtml
http://www.50states.com/statehood.htm#.UJuCFny9KSM
http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/GAConstitution.pdf
407080658
406933101
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Conne Mcclure
11/8/2012 4:33:52 AM
The constitution is still relevant it was a document designed to be changed as our
country grows. It is our foundation to build upon with amendents, it is ever changing .
It is simple and increbile docuement designed to show the people where we have been
and how much we as a country has grown for over 236 years. Children need to
understand where we were as country when the document was written but what the
articile is missing is the core of our country foundation. I am a natural born American
but because of my father position in the government of lived all over the worldl during
the 60's, 70's and early 80's, (I did not live in the US until I was adult) I saw people
that we not allow to express their views, not allowed to vote, not allowed to change
their country directions and humans being treated less than animal. So my answer is
YES the Constitution is relevant and remain so because of were we have been and
since we are free, were we as American choose to go.
Yes I did know that my state has a constition and I read some parts of it. Yes it was
document written for it time but is it is the same as out country Constitution.
407080658
406933101
RE: Is the
Constitution
Professor Devine
Still
Relevant?
11/8/2012 12:33:36 PM
Thanks for sharing information about your state constitutions and the
relevance of the U. S. Constitution, everyone. The state constitutions tend to
be more lengthy and complex and changed more often than our U. S.
Constitution. Here are some really interesting facts about the state
constitutions: http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/7_3_1.html
Ginger
407071538
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Stephanie Knights
11/8/2012 12:12:19 PM
I work in the publishing industry and definitely feel the disclaimer was added to the book to avoid
potential lawsuits, or backlash regarding the U.S. Constitution. The publisher may have felt they
could be held liable if anyone disagrees with the U.S. Constitution since it published the book with
this content. It also shows the publisher is not willing to take any risks when it comes to the U.S.
Constitution and may have some internal disagreements regarding this document within its Editorial
teams.
Do I feel the publisher went overboard with its disclaimer? Definitely. The company should have
made the decision to publish or not to publish the book and assume the risks associated with
printing. In my opinion, it is more important to confirm if you have the legal rights to publish content,
rather than emphasizing personal opinions.
I was not aware that states have its own constitutions, but I did take the opportunity to review the
document online. I do feel that both the state and U.S. Constitutions are relevant in the sense of
having a foundation of how the state and countries function. The Bible was written thousands of
years ago, but somehow we are able to apply its principles to current times. There are also updated
and/or translated versions of the Bible, just as both local and U.S. Constitutions are amended.
407130666
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Joseph Waldrup
11/8/2012 2:32:47 PM
Living in Texas, I found Article 1(Bill of Rights), Section 14 to be interesting:
Sec. 14. DOUBLE JEOPARDY. No person, for the same offense, shall be twice put in
jeopardy of life or liberty; nor shall a person be again put upon trial for the same
offense after a verdict of not guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction.
I was unaware of this considering I'm not really interested in the justice system. The
Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent
prosecution after
acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after
certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.
Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea
is accepted.
406513836
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Julie Hicks
11/7/2012 10:14:22 AM
In their own constitutions, the citizens of states are free to confer on themselves a
greater quantum of rights, vis-à-vis their own government, than the minimum
guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In Oregon, for example, examination of
state constitudonal guarantees always precedes federal inquiries, because, until it can
be determined that the state's laws, including its constitudonal law fully implemented,
denies to some person the federally guaranteed liberty embodied in the Due Process
Clause, no federal claim arises. Oregon free speech law, construing article I, section 8
of the Oregon Constitution, provides a good example of how a state can develop a
coherent body of state constitutional law independendy of any federal constitutional
analog.
Reference:
USING STATE CONSTITUTIONS TO FIND AND ENFORCE CIVIL LIBERTIES. By:
Schuman, David. Lewis & Clark Law Review. Fall2011, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p783-797. 15p.
Written constitutions can assist citizens in overcoming the coordination problem by
providing a definition of what constitutes a violation by government. By stipulating the
rules and defining violations, they increase everyone’s perceived likelihood that others
will join them in enforcing against violations .Despite these dynamics, every
constitutional order is embedded in a larger context of technological, social and
economic change. The international environment is particularly fickle; the one enduring
feature of international law is “persistent uncertainty” (Koremenos 2005). Exogenous
change means that constitutions may come under pressure. A document that is selfenforcing when written may fall out of equilibrium as costs and benefits to various
parties change and as new social actors arise.
Reference:
Koremenos, Barbara. (2005). “Contracting Around International Uncertainty.”
American Political Science Review 99: 549-66.
406530277
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Garrett Jones
11/7/2012 10:57:55 AM
I live in New York State and I found the below very interesting when reviewing New
York's Constitution. I guess I just never gave it much thought but find it interesting
how religion plays such a key roll in the constitution. I guess if a child was removed
from the least their parents could want for their child is to still practice the same
religious beliefs, I guess I just didn't think there would be a part in the constituiton for
it.
"§32. When any court having jurisdiction over a child shall commit it or remand it to an
institution or agency or place it in the custody of any person by parole, placing out,
adoption or guardianship, the child shall be committed or remanded or placed, when
practicable, in an institution or agency governed by persons, or in the custody of a
person, of the same religious persuasion as the child."
http://www.dos.ny.gov/info/constitution.htm
406627691
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Jamie Blea
11/7/2012 3:05:39 PM
I think this is overall a very valuable subject to be talked about. I have lived in three
states over the past three years and I have not read a single one of their constitutions.
To be honest, up until this class the last I have heard about our constitution may have
been middle school. Text books almost need to put out a new edition each year just to
keep current with the times. Even last night, certain states are now allowing
marijuana, and two more states now allow for same sex marriage. I of course do not
want to bring political views into this. But, I want to bring up the point of how often
state and federal laws change.
406725243
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Edwin Scales
11/7/2012 6:20:01 PM
California decided to apply state funding for research and medicine of stem cells. This
gives the state a green light for business and academics to relocate their applications
in California. This law helps expand health and science industries even when federal
research may not be studied or funded. This research demonstrates how constitutions
are like living advocates for modern science and policy.
Article 35 Medical Research Section 2.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_35
408890024
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
Kim Ornder
11/11/2012 11:32:06 PM
I do think that our U.S. Constitution still matters. Despite that is was influenced by the
time it was written in, it still serves as a commonality for many. It gives a jumping off
point for some discussions and can bond people together. When values come from no
where or are too abstract it can create more chaos then a productive conversation. It
works off of some very basic values and leaves room for interpretation thus being able
to apply for years to come.
407955001,408098
407681245
RE: Is the
Constitution
Still
Relevant?
406477541
James Pha
11/9/2012 3:57:43 PM
It would be crazy to think that the U.S. Constitiution and state constitution does not
matter anymore. Like what Professor Devie is asking, "Did you know that in addition to
the U. S. Constitution, each state has its own constitution?" Maybe we do know, but
there is still a bunch of people out there that does not know. For people that does not
know that each state have their own constitute, they will not began to understand the
difference and the roles of each. Have I ever read up on the constitution of my state?
No, I've always thought prior to doing research that the federal constitution will over
ride anything the state does, or it's pretty similar. After reading more about state
constitution and the roles it plays, I have a better understanding. I'm from California,
and following you will find the link that will take you to the table of content of
California State Constitution. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html
Here is one I like to share... I've always thought that the English language is the US
language, but I didnt know it was on paper.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEC. 6. (a) Purpose.
English is the common language of the people of the United States
of America and the State of California. This section is intended to
preserve, protect and strengthen the English language, and not to
supersede any of the rights guaranteed to the people by this
Constitution.
(b) English as the Official Language of California.
English is the official language of the State of California.
To have a better understand of what the state constitution is check this out, I got from
doing some reading...
"When talking about state constitutions, it is often difficult to generalize. Many will feel
a familiarity with some state constitutions because of similarities with the federal
Constitution. But there are many differences, as well. Here are four of them."
1. State constitutions perform different functions (generally limit plenary powers
rather than grant enumerated powers), have different origins (from the people
themselves), and have a different (longer) form
2. State constitutions contain many more policy-oriented provisions, built up
over time, as well as provisions concerning the character, virtue and even morality of
the state’s people. In fact, state constitutions are more democratic than the federal
constitution in that they involve the citizenry in approving their amendment and
revision, voting to approve borrowing, and in many states like Iowa, electing judges.
3. State constitutions better reflect the input of the alternative voices of
African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and women—voices that have had
little impact on the federal Constitution. The differences can obscure one of the most
fundamental aspects of state constitutions: the significant impact that a number of
them adopted before the federal Constitution, had on our national legal charter.
4. The mechanisms of revision. While there is but one, relatively difficult, way to
amend the federal Constitution, amendments or revisions of state constitutions can be
accomplished through legislative, constitutional convention or constitutional
commission proposals, as well as by initiative in some states.
There are substantial political difficulties today with state constitutional amendment
and revision, including popular distrust of constitutional conventions and other
constitution-making processes. Further, there is extensive judicial involvement in
litigation considering the substance and procedure of state constitutional amendment
and revision. Some processes of state constitutional change can only be utilized, for
example, to amend the state constitution but not to revise it.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/ncc/states-rights/the-4-differences-between-thefederal-and-state-constitutions/
408098868,408511
407955001
407681245
RE: Is the
Constitution Professor Devine
11/10/2012 9:24:41 AM
Still
Relevant?
James: The English language amendment has been passed by a number of
states, though not at the federal level. This amendment appears to stem
from the debate over illegal immigration.
Ginger
408511750
408098868
407955001
RE: Is the
Constitution
Michael Como
Still
Relevant?
11/10/2012 3:23:04 PM
Yes, the constitution is still relevant. The ability to make
amendments is what keeps it current today. I think the founding
fathers knew enough to make sure that as times changed, the
constitution would adjust and amend to meet the current needs of
the citizens.
I live in Nevada, and there are many interesting clauses in our
state. Obviously with gambling and legalized prostitution, Nevada
has some clauses that not many other states have. I choose to look
at education and found this clause:
Sec: 4. Establishment of state university; control by board of
regents. The Legislature shall provide for the establishment of a State
University which shall embrace departments for Agriculture, Mechanic
Arts, and Mining to be controlled by a Board of Regents whose duties
shall be prescribed by Law.
It was interesting to me to see the main departments to embrace
were Agriculture, Mechanic Arts and Mining. Recent education
efforts are on Math, Science and Technology. These departments
mentioned in the Nevada Constitution may be out of date.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst.html#Art11
408511750
408098868
RE: Is the
Constitution
Colleen Walker
Still
Relevant?
11/11/2012 12:45:09
PM
I definitely think that the constitution is still relevant. I
remember learning about it in school, like Middle School,
but I definitely don't remember it as well as I knew it back
then. I definitely think that the constitution needs to be
able to adapt and change with the changing world. Out
technology and knowledge about everything means we
have to keep adapting and changing to keep current. Also
keeping the language current so people can understand it
makes a lot of sense to me as well.
408284101,406914
406662475
0
Chapter 5,
Problems 7 Antonia Whittler
and 4
11/7/2012 4:26:37 PM
Prof. Devine and class,
I would have to say that if the Court is just looking at the rational basis test
and the 10th Amendment that provides states with rights to enact laws that are
not in direct conflict with federal laws that the statute would be able to survive
a constitutional challenge. However, the sale of milk within Minnesota could
affect interstate commerce if the suppliers/distributors of the milk are located
outside of the state but deliver their milk to Minnesota to be sold. If this is the
case then interstate commerce comes into play and the commerce clause
would trump and the statute would not survive a constitutional challenge if it
became unduly burdensome on the suppliers/distributors to comply with the
statute.
There is no rational basis for this statute because the Clover Leaf Creamery
provided evidence to the Minnesota Supreme Court showing that the facts do
not support the Minnesota’s Legislature’s reason for the enactment of such
law. The Minnesota Legislature stated that the purpose of the enactment of
this law “was to control solid waste, arguing that plastic containers take up
more space in solid waste disposal dumps.” The Minnesota Supreme Court
found that the jugs that the statute banned took up less space and required
less energy to produce. Thus, the rationale for the enactment of this law has
been proven to nonexistent. “Under the rational basis test, the courts will
uphold a law if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. The
challenger of the constitutionality of the statute has the burden of proving that
there is no conceivable legitimate purpose or that the law is not rationally
related to it.” Retrieved on November 7, 2012 from
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis_test
The evidence shows that the argument why the Legislature determined that it
would enact this law is incorrect, but not its’ reasoning. The Minnesota
Legislature wanted to control solid waste within its state. I believe that this is a
valid reason for the enactment of the law, but the argument relating to plastic
containers is inappropriate. This will not have a great impact on the
constitutionality of the statute if the Legislature can come up with other
reasons why it wants to control solid waste within its state because it has that
right under the Constitution to enact laws for the good of its citizens.
408284101
RE:
Chapter
5,
Problems
7 and 4
406662475
Blanche Meriweather
11/10/2012 9:01:55 PM
Great point Antonia;
Cause it state in that text, I don't think the statue would survive a constitutional
challenge.
407822812
406914143
RE:
Chapter
5,
Problems
7 and 4
406662475
Linda Sue Martin
11/7/2012 11:57:05 PM
There is significant evidence to dispute the rational of the reasons for the ban on
plastic containers. The reason for the statute is solid reasoning, but the evidence to
back up their reasoning is now flawed. I'm sure with further studies they might be able
to make a case that recycling plastic container may help manage the solid waste within
the state. I would have to agree the constitutionality of the statute is not in jeopardy.
407822812
406914143
RE:
Chapter
5,
Edwin Scales
Problems
7 and 4
11/9/2012 9:17:52 PM
Modified:11/9/2012 9:20 PM
Keep in mind technology and packaging constantly change. All companies
within in each state would need a huge legal team if dairy products such as
milk had to be regulated for size and energy to produce. The Legislators
should adapt language that would be supported unilaterally under the 10th
Amendment and not in a position that would challenge the Commerce Clause
of interstate.
This reminds me of situations in which non-regulation leads to corporate and
public dilemmas. Motor coaches should have the same dimensions in every
state for public safety. The EPA requires all states to use the most
progressive non-points source environmental waste rather than permitting
tiers of allowable waste.
The federal courts would determine whether agencies can set their own
regulations. Regulations designed to address the many concerns of state
legislators end-up in Congress. These decision makers tend to desire
uniformity and no undue hardship usually in terms of money.
406771140
0
Chapter 5,
Problem 7 Stephanie Knights
11/7/2012 7:28:13 PM
Can the statute survive a constitutional challenge?
No. I believe Clover Leaf Creamery will find probably causes to have
the statue dismissed. If the Minnesota Legislature purpose is to
address the space in its disposal dumps, Clover Leaf will be able to
counteract by proving there is no basis for this rational.
Is there a rational basis for this statue?
Yes, definitely. The Minnesota Legislature should be concerned with
its waste disposal systems and finding ways to improve it. This act
was supported by various agencies such as the state Pollution
Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, Department of
Agriculture, Consumer Services Division and Energy Agency. So the
legislature did their homework and collaborated with other public
service agencies to supports its claim that paperboard milk products
would promote resource conservation, ease solid waste disposal
problems and conserve energy. They were attempting to halt the
production of plastic containers before they were introduced into the
market
What effect does the evidence to the contrary have on the statues
constitutionality?
Basically, Clover Leaf Creamery accused the legislature of
attempting to promote the economic interests of certain dairy and
pulpwood industries at the expense of other dairy segments and
plastics manufacturers. The company would have to provide
evidence on how milk and/or dairy prices increases affect the
revenue of Clover Leaf, while benefiting its competitors.
406840817
0
RE:
Chapter 5, James Pha
Problems 7
11/7/2012 9:10:28 PM
Modified:11/7/2012 9:34 PM
In order for me to better understand and begin to answer the question, I looked up the case in a
bit more detail, and I stumbled across this to help us all have a better understand...
"No and no. Writing for the majority in a 7-1 decision, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. maintained
that Minnesota's statute was not unconstitutional, acknowledging that the legislature had an
interest in promoting resource conservation and resolving solid waste disposal issues."
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1171
I can clearly see why it would be a no to as why the statute would not survive a constitutional
challenge. In the text, "The Minnesota Supreme Court found evidence to the contrary: The jugs
took
up less space and required less energy to produce." Here a lone, there is no case plus it's shut
down at the state level supreme court.
Is there a "rational basis" for the statute? Yes, the text stated that in order to have an irrational
basis is, "An example of a classification that would not survive is one requiring the
manufacturers of soft drinks to use only nonbreakable bottles for their product but allowing juice
manufacturers to use glass bottles; this classification is irrational. If a public safety concern is
raised about glass bottles, it must apply equally to all beverage manufacturers"
Jennings, Marianne M.. Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 9th ed.. 9.
VitalSource Bookshelf. South Western Educational Publishing, , Wednesday, November 07, 2012.
<http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781133170624/page/178>
407813439,407233
407077636
Colorado's New
Law Unconstitutional?
0
Professor Devine
11/8/2012 12:26:42 PM
Class: Well, thanks to the citizens of Colorado, we can now consider whether the law permitting
recreational use within the state will pass constitutional muster--Commerce Clause? Supremacy
Clause? Any other constitutional challenges? Can we compare and contrast this law with state
medical marijuana laws?
Ginger
407813439
407077636
RE: Colorado's
New Law Dana Smicklas
Unconstitutional?
11/9/2012 8:57:11 PM
Unless the marijuana is being grown or processed in a different state, it wouldn't
necessarily fall under the commerce clause.
I don't understand how the federal government is openly allowing the states to get
away with allowing citizens to break laws. Marijuana growth, sales and/or possession is
illegal and depending on the weight, can be considered a federal offense. So is that
how the state gets around it, by allowing people to have a smaller amount than what
would be a federal charge? California has done the same thing and I can tell you that
there are stores in the state where you can go in and purchase the drug (I have family
in CA and visit them on a regular basis). The parts of the state where marijuana sales
are "booming" have gone down hill and look terrible.
In my opinion, the only reason the states are allowing the sales of illegal drugs is so
that they can profit from the sales and get tax revenue. This goes back to ethics. Yes,
the states are broke, but is allowing illegal things to be legal really he answer?
Personally, I don't think so because it's just going to snowball...first it's marijuana and
then what? Crack? Prostitution?
407547074,407626
407233234
407077636
RE: Colorado's
New Law Conne Mcclure
Unconstitutional?
11/8/2012 5:58:51 PM
Supremacy Clause will come into play in Colorado and Washington state. Marijuana for
adult recreational, growing and sale. It is against federal law so technically federal
takes presendance over state laws but it is going to be difficult to enforce because due
to lack of federal resources to prosecute people for small amounts of marijuana.
Medical marijuana does have wonderful uses in the medical field. I have seen hospice
patients with bone cancer use medical marijuana for pain management. I do believe at
one point the US Supreme Court will hear a case regarding the use of marijuana for
recreational use.
407626696,407661
407547074
407233234
RE: Colorado's
New Law Professor Devine
Unconstitutional?
11/9/2012 10:04:35 AM
Conne: I think this law will be challenged. The medical marijuana law was
challenged in the Supreme Court case of Gonzalez v. Raich:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/
Check out the Court's decision--do you think a similar decision will be
reached if the recreational use law is challenged?
Ginger
407661342,408510
407626696
407547074
RE: Colorado's
New Law Colleen Walker
Unconstitutional?
11/9/2012 1:31:37
PM
I definintly think that a similar decision will be reached if the
recreational use is challenged. I also think this law will be
challenged, we can see that is probably will just because it has
been in the past. Since the Supremacy Clause will come into play
here and it is not a legal thing to use recreational marijuana on a
federal level it will be challenged and defeated.
Another interesting thing I head about this new law is that the
NCAA and NBA have made official statements that even though it is
legal in the state of Colorado, it is still illegal by their rules. If this
law does stay in effect I wonder how many other agency/programs
will also say it is illegal, colleges? other sports? Will they be able to
enforce it? It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
408510257
407661342
407626696
RE: Colorado's
New Law Michael Como
Unconstitutional?
11/9/2012 3:05:00
PM
Colleen - I think you bring up a relevant point with the
latest news on the NBA and NCAA. I worked in a college in
Denver recently, and with the medical marijuana laws,
people thought if they had a card, then it would not
matter about drug screens. Hospitals, doctors, and clinics
do not allow any positive drug screens for their
employees, regardless of having a medical marijuana card
or not. We had to remind all potential students that it was
not a get out of jail free card.
408510257
407661342
RE: Colorado's
New Law Colleen Walker
Unconstitutional?
11/11/2012
12:41:44 PM
Michael, you are definitely making a good point
here. I feel like the people in Colorado that
wanted the marijuana to be legal for recreational
uses definitely didn't see the whole picture. I bet
a lot of companies would make it illegal for their
employees or would have to worry a ton about
their employees getting high before work. They
might consider having to drug test their
employees every morning before work which
would be a huge inconvenience as well as cost
to the company. It will be interesting to see how
it pans out.
408744859
407547074
RE: Colorado's
New Law Dana Smicklas
Unconstitutional?
11/11/2012 7:38:33
PM
That article you provided, which spoke about California's law,
specifically spoke about legalization of medical marijuana. However,
the law that was passed in Colorado is for recreational use:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/07/news/economy/marijuanalegalization-washington-colorado/index.html
408285904,408728
407859969
407547074
RE: Colorado's
New Law Linda Sue Martin
Unconstitutional?
11/9/2012 10:57:27
PM
The issue of legal/illegal marijuana in California is frequently in the
news. There seems to be considerable passion on both sides of the
issue. Since the marijuana is grown inside the state the commerce
is not interstate. The article indicates that the government has a
position because it is regulating a national commerce of marijuana.
It seems that the government is stretching the point. They are
making a case that its using the class of activities to pull the issue
into their domain may be hard to defend. I tried to search for a
possible precedence, but I confess I'm new at searches for law
issues. If there is not a precedence for such an claim it might be
difficult to sustain such an argument. Especially, if the marijuana is
grown in the state and not grown to be sold outside the state. I
think this issue will continue to be contested from both sides.
408728909,408731
408285904
407859969
RE: Colorado's
New Law Blanche Meriweather
Unconstitutional?
11/10/2012 9:05:03
PM
Great point Linda;
Like Michigan they allow it to legal for medical reason but,
they also said if you were caught with it it's a felony.
408728909
408285904
RE: Colorado's
Linda Sue Martin
11/11/2012
New Law Unconstitutional?
7:17:10 PM
Now doesn't that sound hypocritical?
We'll allow you to buy, but if we catch
you carrying it home we'll arrest you?
California does the same thing. Seems
you can only buy medical weed in small
amounts. Which means the sick person
has to keep going to the store to buy it in
small doses. Image you could only
purchase your subscription drugs one
week's dosage at a time. That would kill
my schedule.
408731075
408285904
RE: Colorado's
New Law James Pha
Unconstitutional?
11/11/2012
7:20:00 PM
Myself pretty new to these laws and which would
come to play over the other, and in there is
somehow some sort of loop whole to get around
one thing or another as it seems. To Blanche's
point, it seems as for medical purpose it's fine,
but if your caught with it then you get busted.
I'm from California, I not really sure as far as
how are you able to identify yourself to the cops
that you are a medical user. I'm just thinking...
If your using it for medical reason, why would
you be getting in to trouble with the law, if you
abide by the rules. Of course, it's always
someone trying to do something out of the
norms that is getting busted.
407960571
407547074
RE: Colorado's
New Law Conne Mcclure
Unconstitutional?
11/10/2012 9:39:15
AM
I disagree Professor with court stance on the case but I also know
that with limited resource for regulations enforcement it is going to
difficult for recreational use. I hope that a case will come again that
will challenge the court. As I said I seen that in a control medical
enviornment medical marijuana has some wonderful uses. As I said
pain management especially in bone cancer and in patient with
glaucoma. I think that we as country worry about recreational and
medical use in marijuana but we allow people to injection botox to
improve fine lines of ageing.
408462442,408741
408184948
407077636
RE: Colorado's
New Law Stephanie Knights
Unconstitutional?
11/10/2012 6:19:09 PM
Another constitutional challenge is the voting rights act,
which is been heard by the Supreme Court in regards to
discrimination of minority voters in Texas and 15 other
states. The issue came up three years ago, however, the
Chief Justice felt the issue was too involved to make a
decision. However, based on the current discriminatory acts
of certain states, the Supreme Court may have cause to
continue the implementation of government supervision of
voting practices.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/washington/20121110-supreme-court-to-hearchallenge-to-voting-rights-act-mandate-for-texas-15-other-states.ece
408462442
408184948
RE: Colorado's
New Law Professor Devine
Unconstitutional?
11/11/2012 10:38:17 AM
There have been numerous Voter ID laws passed around the country, which
continue to be challenged on constitutional grounds. Good point, Stephanie.
Ginger
408741987
408184948
RE: Colorado's
New Law Dana Smicklas
Unconstitutional?
11/11/2012 7:34:45 PM
It's interesting that the article doesn't point out what specifically makes
discriminatory voting in those particular states.
407956329
0
Week 2 Discussion 1 Professor Devine
- Wrap Up
11/10/2012 9:28:15 AM
Class: We have spent this week discussing course objective B: "Given instances of federal
regulation of business and commercial practices, determine the constitutional and regulatory
bases for such regulation, and formulate a strategy by which an impacted business can influence
or contest regulating outcomes."
We have already looked at the Minnesota decision in some detail. With respect to the Iowa
statute, the Supreme Court struck down the Iowa law as creating an undue burden on interstate
commerce. Thanks for weighing in on both decisions.
In plain language, the Iowa court pointed out a couple of significant facts. First, the limitation on
truck size didn't improve safety, but in fact made it worse. The accidents were more a function
of miles driven, not the trailer length. By forcing trucks to drive around the state or pull the
trailers separately, this increased miles driven and thus decreased safety. Second, they pointed
out that the many exemptions the state had granted hurt the state's case that the motive was
for public good. It said that the many exemptions granted the border cities showed that the
state was more interested in promoting the economic advantage of the Iowan trucking
industries.
The application of the balancing test is important because it will influence how other courts also
apply the test. The balancing test considers: 1) whether federal regulation supersedes state
involvement and 2) whether the benefits achieved by the regulation outweigh the burden on
interstate commerce. Do you agree or disagree with the court’s final decision and/or the court’s
reasoning for their decision (if you have not already weighed in)? Why?
We looked at other cases this week to figure out the role of the courts in deciding legal disputes,
particularly constitutional issues, such as equal protection and due process. We also learned
about the various federal and state court structures.
The Bruce case can be difficult to understand because it involves the "dormant Commerce
Clause." What is it and what does it mean? Here is a helpful summary of the case for those of
you having difficulty wading through the decision itself:
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-tochemerinsky/limits-on-state-regulatory-and-tax-power/loren-j-pike-v-bruce-church-inc/
What have you learned this week about the state and federal court systems and constitutional
law?
For the exams and for your knowledge, be sure that you can distinguish bills/laws/statutes/acts
from agency rules/regulations. If you encounter a law, you will want to approach it from a
constitutional perspective. If you encounter a rule or regulation, you will want to consider what
we have learned in the second discussion thread this week in light of the Administrative
Procedures Act and procedural or substantive challenges to such rules or regulations (as noted
in Chapter 6).
See you in the Week 3 discussion thread. You are doing great!
Ginger
Reference:
Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0450_0662_ZO.html
Oyez.org. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/19801989/1980/1980_79_1171?sort=ideology
408251051
0
Problem 7 Chelsey Houwen
11/10/2012 8:07:59 PM
1. Can the statute survive a constitutional challenge?
Well, the statue is the banning of the retail sale of milk in plastic
nonreturnable, nonrefillable containers but permitting such sale in
other nonrefillable containers such as paperboard milk cartons. Well,
why ban the plastic container and the not the paperboard container?
I know it is because of waste control but really, how is a plastic
container hurting the world. It probably can survive the
constitutional challenge but I doubt it. We still use/buy the plastic or
paperboard milk containers.
2. Is there a "rational basis" for the statute?
Other than, what is stated by the Minnesota legislature? I would
have to go with no; there is no true rational basis.
3. What effect does the evidence to the contrary have on the
statute's constitutionality?
It questions the statue’s constitutionality. What is their real and true
reason for this legislature? Is it for saving money, energy, and time?
After all, we are always trying to save money.
_u=8678735;_dt=6
EE-E1-40-34-79-43