Tuesday September 17, 2013
• Objective: SWBAT determine how
Federalism was affected through the
Supreme Court.
• Drill: What role does federalism play in the
balance of power? What examples can
you give of discretions between federal
and state government?
• Homework: Read two articles and
complete CLUES.
Federalism and the Balance of
Powers
• In pairs look over the Supreme Court
Cases.
• For each case: title of the case and year it
was decided.
– List the relevant parts of the Constitution
– Decide how you and your partner would
decide on this case.
– What was the actual decision, what was the
precedent that was set?
1. Necessary and Proper Clause- “Congress shall have the power …to make all
laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…all other
powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.”
2. 14th Amendment- “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“
3. Interstate Commerce Clause- “Congress shall have power…to regulate
commerce…among the several states.”
4. Spending Clause- “Congress shall have power…to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the…general welfare of the
United States.”
5. The 10th Amendment- “The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states
respectively…”
6. The Supremacy Clause-“ The Constitution and the laws of the United
States…shall be the supreme laws of the land…”
Wednesday September 18, 2013
• Objective: SWBAT
determine how
Federalism affects the
USA in regards to
current issues.
• Drill: What does this
cartoon say about the
separation of Powers?
• Homework: Wilson
63-72 Cornell Notes
Finish Supreme Court and
Federalism Cases
• Use the posters around the room to finish
your worksheet, you have 15 minutes.
The Elastic
Clause/Necessary & Proper
Clause-“Congress has the
power…to make all laws
which shall be necessary
and proper…”
Commerce Clause“Congress has the power to
regulate commerce…among
the several states…”
Commerce=trade,
buying/selling.
Supremacy Clause-“The
laws of the United States
which shall be made…shall
be the supreme law of the
land…and every state shall
be bound [by them]…”
14th Amendment/Equal
Protection’s Clause-No one
can be denied “equal
protection of the laws” or
“deprived of life, liberty or
property without due
process…” [organized legal
process with rules].
Commander in Chief
Clause-The president shall
be Commander in Chief of
the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the
militia of the several
states…
13th Amendment“Involuntary servitude…
[slavery] shall not exist
within the United States…”
Judicial Review
•
Judicial Review is the power of
judges in a court to decide or rule
that a law is unconstitutional.
•
A law passed by a legislature may
be considered unfair or
discriminatory by someone.
•
Citizens affected by these unfair
laws [ex. arrest and convictions in
court] may decide to sue a
government, person or
organization or appeal their cases
to a higher court.
•
A court may overturn, reverse or
strike down any law if it believes it
violates any portion of the U.S.
Constitution.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Maryland enacted a statute imposing a tax on all banks operating in Maryland not chartered by the state. The
statute provided that all such banks were prohibited from issuing bank notes except upon stamped paper
issued by the state. The Second Bank of the United States was established pursuant to an 1816 act of Congress.
McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, issued bank notes without
complying with the Maryland law. Maryland sued McCulloch for failing to pay the taxes due under the
Maryland statute and McCulloch contested the constitutionality of that act. The state court found for
Maryland and McCulloch appealed. Questions: Does Congress have the power under the Constitution to
incorporate a bank, even though that power is not specifically enumerated within the Constitution, and does
the State of Maryland have the power to tax an institution created by Congress pursuant to its powers under
the Constitution?
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
A New York state law gave two individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state
jurisdiction. Laws like this one were duplicated elsewhere which led to friction as some states would require
foreign (out-of-state) boats to pay substantial fees for navigation privileges. In this case a steamboat owner
who did business between New York and New Jersey challenged the monopoly that New York had granted,
which forced him to obtain a special operating permit from the state to navigate on its waters. Question: Did
the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to Congress, namely, the regulation of
interstate commerce?
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
In 1890, Louisiana passed a statute called the Separate Car Act. This law declared that all rail companies
carrying passengers in Louisiana had to provide separate but equal accommodations for white and non-white
passengers. The penalty for sitting in the wrong compartment was a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail. Homer
Plessy, a citizen of the United States who was one-eighth black and a resident of the state of Louisiana. On
June 7, 1892, Plessy purchased a first-class passage from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana and sat in the
railroad car for "White" passengers. The railroad officials knew Plessy was coming and arrested him for
violating the Separate Car Act. Plessy argued in court that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery and the Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the government treat people equally. Plessy appealed the case to the Louisiana
State Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision that the Louisiana law was constitutional. Question: Is
Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the
privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Lochner v. New York (1905)
The Bakeshop Act was a New York state labor law which prohibited bakery employees from working
for more than sixty hours per week or ten hours per day. Lochner permitted an employee to work in
his bakery for more than sixty hours in one week and was convicted of his second offense and fined.
The state of New York argued that it was in the interests of the state to preserve the health of its
population to ensure that it is robust and strong, while the federal government argued that the act
prohibited the right to enter and make voluntary contracts, which is a liberty under the 14th
Amendment. Question: Under constitutional law, does the New York law violate the liberty protected
by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment by prohibiting the right of employers/employees from
voluntarily entering into contracts?
Hammer v Dagenhart (1918)
The Keating-Owen Act of 1916, otherwise known as the Child Labor Act, prohibited the
transportation in interstate commerce of goods produced at factories that violated certain
restrictions on child labor. Roland Dagenhart worked in a cotton mill in Charlotte, North Carolina
with his two minor sons, both of whom would be barred from employment at the mill under the Act.
Dagenhart brought this lawsuit seeking an injunction against enforcement of the Act on the grounds
that it was not a regulation of interstate or foreign commerce. The government asserted that the Act
fell within the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Question: Does the congressional
act violate the Commerce Clause or the Tenth Amendment?
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation v. US (1934)
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation was convicted for violating the Live Poultry Code, found in
Section: 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act. Petitioners sold chickens wholesale in Brooklyn
Slaughterhouses, primarily to butchers and retail dealers. Most of the chickens were purchased in
NYC markets and railroad stations from commission men (to whom the chickens were consigned),
and occasionally from commission men in Philadelphia. The US government argued that Schechter
sold chickens in quantities outside of those permitted by the Live Poultry Code and thus violated a
law established to regulate Interstate Commerce. Question: Does Federal Law cover transactions that
deal with goods coming from a transaction in interstate commerce, but where all subsequent
transactions are purely intrastate?
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public
accommodation if their operations affected commerce. The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta,
Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans and was charged with violating Title II. Heart of Atlanta
Motel had 216 rooms available to transient guests and had historically rented rooms only to white
guests. Appellant solicits business from outside the State of Georgia through advertising in national
travel magazines and other media. Approximately 70% of its guests are from outside the state.
Appellant contends that Congress has overreached its authority under the Commerce Clause in
enacting the Act Question: Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its
Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose
their own customers?
Printz v. US (1997)
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) required "local chief law enforcement
officers" (CLEOs) to perform background-checks on prospective handgun purchasers, until such
time as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. County sheriffs Jay
Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of this interim provision of the
Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona respectively. In both cases District Courts
found the background-checks unconstitutional. Question: Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of
Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require states to regulate handgun purchases by
performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant background-checks?
US v. Lopez (1995)
Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio,
Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises.
The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a
federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual
knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty
following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised
release. Question: IS the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly
carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to
legislate under the Commerce Clause?
US v. Morrison/Brzonkala v. Morrison (2000)
In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison
and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia Tech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a
complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was
found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished.
A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's administrative system,
Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the
university. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's
and Crawford's attack violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which
provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. The District Court found that that
Congress lacked authority to enact section 13981 under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment,
which Congress had explicitly identified as the sources of federal authority for it. Question: Does Congress have the
authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 under the Commerce Clause?
Gonzalez v. Oregon (2006)
In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act, the first state law authorizing physicians to prescribe lethal doses
of controlled substances to terminally ill patients. Attorney General John Ashcroft declared in 2001 that physicianassisted suicide violated the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Ashcroft threatened to revoke the medical
licenses of physicians who took part in the practice. Oregon sued Ashcroft in federal district court arguing that the 10 th
Amendment protected the states’ right to legislate end of life issues. Question: Did the Necessary and Proper Clause
enable the federal government to overturn Oregon’s law or does the 10 th Amendment protect Oregon decision?
Raich v. Gonzalez (2005)
In 1996 California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California's law
conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. After the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, a group of medical
marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court. The medical marijuana
users argued the Controlled Substances Act - which Congress passed using its constitutional power to regulate
interstate commerce - exceeded Congress' commerce clause power. Question: Does the Controlled Substances Act
exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of
marijuana for medical use?
The Supreme Court’s decision in McCulloch v. Maryland
concerned which of the following issues?
I. The right of the federal government to control interstate
commerce
II. The Authority of a state to tax an agency of the federal
government
III. The right of the states to declare a federal law null and
void
IV. The right of the federal government to create the Bank of
the United States under the necessary and proper clause
a. I and II only
b. II only
c. II and IV only
d. I and III only
e. IV only
Just jot down
the letter of the
correct answer
Regulation of non-economic activity under
the Commerce Clause is possible only
through the Necessary and Proper Clause.
The Necessary and Proper Clause confers
supplemental authority only when the
means adopted to accomplish an
enumerated power are 'appropriate', are
'plainly adapted to that end', and are
'consistent with the letter and spirit of the
constitution.' Requiring citizen-to-citizen
subsidy or redistribution is contrary to the
foundational assumptions of the
constitutional compact.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
• New York Legislature had passed a law giving a monopoly on
steamship travel in New York state to a group of investors.
• Among the people who had permission to do business under
this monopoly was Aaron Ogden.
• Thomas Gibbons, another steamship trader, wanted to use
the New York waterways for his business, as well.
• He had been given federal permission to do so. He was
denied access to these waterways by the State of New York,
which cited its law as enforcement.
• Gibbons sued Ogden, and the Supreme Court agreed to
decide the case.
• The majority opinion, written by Marshall, said that the U.S.
Constitution had a commerce clause that allowed the federal
government to regulate commerce, in this case trade,
wherever it might be, including within the borders of a state.
• Previously, it was thought that the federal government had
power over only interstate commerce.
• But Marshall's opinion said that the commerce clause applied
here, too.
• Thus, the Supreme Court extended the definition of interstate
commerce and cemented the power of the federal
government over the states when laws conflicted.
Plessy v. Ferguson!
By: Hannah Corton
PLESSY
FERGUSON
-He was denied the
13th and 14th
amendment
-“Race” was not
properly defined
-Separation was
not equal
-Plessy was
classified as black
-Louisiana has the
right to regulate
there railways
-The 14th
amendment was
only made to give
blacks and white
equal protection
under the law
+
=
Printz V. United States
No. 95-1478. Argued December 3, 1996 -Decided June 27, 1997
James Brady
Reagan's White House Press Secretary
Issue: The federal law had placed an undue burden on local law
enforcement officials
-Jay Printz
Richard Mack-
The Decision
Five votes for Printz, Four votes against. The Supreme Court
made their decision on the principle that the state legislatures are
not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that while
Congress may require the federal government to regulate
commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks
on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper
Clause does not empower it to compel state CLEOs to fulfill its
federal tasks for it.
Lopez v. United States
1995
Public Policy and The News
• Continuum Exercise:
– There will be a series of Policy Statements
from the readings.
– After each term is read based on your opinion
move toward the area that corresponds to
your feelings. Agree, Disagree, Undecided.
Ground Rules
• State your opinions when asked and the
reasons for it.
• Only one person speaks at a time.
• Listen to other people’s opinions and
reasons.
• Do NOT try to respond by arguing.
• If you have changed your mind, you may
move to a spot that more accurately
reflects your viewpoint. Be ready to
explain your reason for moving.
Policy Statements
• Marijuana legalization has no chance
becoming legal on the Federal Level.
• I believe that states should have the right
to decide if they want to legalize
marijuana.
• Federalism should be protected by the
court system at all costs.
• The initiatives having age and quantity
requirements makes me more likely to
agree.
• It is the governments job to keep us safe,
even from ourselves.
• If the majority of people agree that
marijuana should be legal, than it should
be. (principles of Democracy)
• Health Care:
• The Supremacy Clause would not allow
state governments to outlaw Obama care.
• If these initiatives are passed states will
have more power than the Federal
government.
• states have the right to declare their
sovereignty from the Federal Government
• Federalism will be restored.
Marriage Equality, Religious Freedom
• Our government is based on JudaeoChristian beliefs
• Religion should not be part of our
government.
• The Government should force places of
worship to accept same sex marriages.
• The government should deny exemptions
to churches who refuse same sex couples
• The government should not even be
involved in this discussion
• States should individually decide the issue
of same sex marriage
• Judges should not have the right to
overturn past judgments
• Changes to the Constitution should only
be made by ratification by states.
• The Judicial Branch has far too much
power.
The power of the federal government was
expanded by the following Supreme Court
decisions:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
McCulloch v. Maryland
Marbury v. Madison
Barron v. Baltimore
Gibbons v. Ogden
a. I and II only
b. I, II, and III only
I, II, IV only
c. III and IV only
d. I and IV only
Wrap Up
1. States may not tax a federal bank because of
the Supremacy Clause and the federal
government may create a national bank under
the necessary and proper clause.
2. States may not regulate the movement of
goods between two states because the
transportation is a federal right under the
interstate commerce clause.
3. States may implement separate-but-equal
laws because they do not violate the 14th
Amednment’s “equal protection” clause
because there are facilities for both races.
4. Congress may not regulate child labor within a
state because the children are involved in the
manufacturing of a product and manufacturing
is not interstate commerce.
5. Congress may not regulate a transaction that
is the result of interstate commerce.
6. The Court distinguished between direct effects
on interstate commerce, which Congress could
lawfully regulate, and indirect, which were
purely matters of state law.
9/17/2013
a. Lochner v. New York
c. McCullough v.
Maryland
c. Hammer v Dagenhart
d. Plessy v. Ferguson
e. Gibbons v. Ogden
f. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry
Corporation v. US
Wrap Up
9/17/13
1. Which of the following cases INCREASED Federal Power?
Gibbons v. Ogden
Brown v. Board of Ed.
U.S. v. Morrison
Raich v. Gonzalez
McCulloch v. Maryland
U.S. v. Lopez
Printz v. United States
Plessy v. Ferguson
Heart of Atlanta
Hammer v Dagenhart
2. Which of the following cases altered our interpretation of the Commerce
Clause?
Gibbons v. Ogden
McCulloch v. Maryland
Brown v. Board of Ed. U.S. v. Lopez
U.S. v. Morrison
Printz v. United States
Raich v. Gonzalez
Plessy v. Ferguson
Heart of Atlanta
Hammer v Dagenhart
3. What are three overall conclusions that we can make about the
relationship between the Supreme Court and Federalism?