Constitutional Law Class 11: 2/1/2008 Prof. Fischer The Commerce Clause III 1995-present.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

The Judicial Branch. Origins of the Supreme Court Constitutional Origin. Article III, §1, of the Constitution provides that [t]he judi-cial Power of the.

Advertisements

Comparative Constitutional Law Class 14 October 8, 2008 Comparing constitutional law on abortion in the U.S., Germany, and Canada.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the future of the U.S. Supreme Court Friends of the Northern Illinois University Libraries Speaker Series, DeKalb, IL, January.

By Andrew Stivers GONZALEZ V. OREGON. You decide: Prelude to Gonzalez V. Oregon A 107 year old woman, who is a resident of Portland, Oregon, has three.

The Federal Courts. The Nature of the Judicial System Introduction: – Two types of cases: Criminal Law: The government charges and individual with violating.

The Future of the Court Death Watch Name Born Age Apptd. President Ideology* John Paul Stevens Ford 10 William H. Rehnquist 1924.

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation Shan Sivalingam UW Law School – Street Law May 2007.

Your Supreme Court. The Justices National Judiciary Created by Article III in the Constitution –“The judicial power of the United States shall be vested.

Ferguson v. Charleston Aaron Leavitt Law, Values, and Public Policy Spring Semester 2002.

Judicial Review. Ayers v. Belmontes ( ) KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO,

Judicial System State Trial Courts (Superior Courts) State Courts of Appeals State Supreme Court Federal District Courts Federal Courts of Appeals U.S.

The Judiciary Chapter 12. Interpretation of Judicial language Stare Decisis: “to stand on decided cases” Appellate Court: A court reviewing a case originally.

Constitutional Limits to Wetlands Regulation By: Chris Smith.

Chapter 3 Kinds Of Law.

By: Stacey Brands.  United States v. Morrison, is a United States supreme court decision which held that parts of Violence Against Women Act 1994 were.

Supreme Court Cases. Section 4 Federalism and the Supreme Court Chapter 13 Supreme Court Cases.

 Court: U.S. Supreme Court  Date: 1985  Issue: Did New York City's decision to use Title I funds to pay salaries of parochial school teachers violate.

Highest Court in the U.S..  Created to interpret (explain) the Constitution.  Judicial Review: Cases looked over to see if they are Constitutional/

1 Federal Judiciary Lesson Role of the Courts What is the role of courts - resolve political issues? Presidential election Presidential election.

The American legal system An overview. Sources of law Constitutional law –U.S. Constitution –State constitutions May grant more rights than the U.S. Constitution,

The Judicial Branch. Jurisdiction Federal Courts –Article III, Section 1 vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and other inferior courts created by.

2013 U.S. Supreme Court Preview Sarah Edson, Esq. Mullen High School

Constitutional Law Jody Blanke Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law.

Judicial System State Trial Courts (Superior Courts) State Courts of Appeals State Supreme Court Federal District Courts Federal Courts of Appeals U.S.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 12 February 4, 2008 Limits on Federal Legislative Powers: The Tenth Amendment.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 29 Economic Substantive Due Process Part II March 19, 2008.

Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Prof. Fischer Class 16: Limits on Congressional Power to Regulate – Sovereign Immunity Feb 13, 2008.

Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Prof. Fischer Class 15 Limits on Legislative Power/Judicial Power: Sovereign Immunity and Amendment XI.

Supreme Court Cases -Highest Court in the Nation -All Decisions are Final -Usually Appellate Jurisdiction Only -Only hears about of thousands of.

A Look at the Judicial Branch The Federal Court System & Supreme Court.

Date: September 18, 2014 Topic: Key Principles Provided Under the Constitution. Aim: How are government powers defined and challenged? Do Now: Multiple.

Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Class 26: Dormant Commerce Clause II.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SPRING 2008 PROF. FISCHER CLASS 10 January 30, 2008 The Commerce Clause II Interpretation: 1937-present.

Gonzalez v. Oregon Logan Oyler, Chris Cubra, Jake Macnair, Vikash Patel, Tyler Stallworth Tyler Stallworth.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TAXING AND SPENDING POWER Class 13: February 6, 2008 Professor Fischer.

Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Class 33 Alienage Classifications Affirmative Action.

In 1991, Danny Kyllo was suspected of growing marijuana in his home Oregon police scanned his house with an Agema Thermovision 210 thermal imaging device.

Jody Blanke, Professor Computer Information Systems and Law Mercer University, Atlanta.

Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Professor Fischer War Powers II February 27, 2008.

October 10, 2002 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Constitutional Law I Federal Power V (“New Federalism”) Feb. 17, 2006.

{ Capitol Square Review v. Pinette Riley Poling PLS 211 Mr. John Noel December 8, 2015.

Constitutional Law I Tenth Amendment Redux Feb. 22, 2005.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SPRING 2008 PROF. FISCHER Class 25 The Dormant Commerce Clause Part I.

Constitutional Law I Spring 2004Con Law I Federal Power IV “Dual Federalism” - Revived Feb. 24, 2004.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROF. FISCHER Class 14: Feb 8, 2008 Congressional Power under the XIII and XIV Reconstruction Amendments.

Constitutional Law I Tenth Amendment Redux Oct. 6, 2004.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Lorraine Jones Yu Sun.

The United States Supreme Court. Constitutional Basis Supreme Court is established in Article III of the Constitution There is one Supreme Court. There.

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES What is the purpose of the Supreme Court? **It is the final authority on the Constitution Judicial Review!!

Section 3. The Court Decisions are final Intended to be as powerful as the other two branches Chief Justice & 8 associate justices – Appointed for life.

Constitutional Law Jody Blanke Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law.

Article III Federal Court System. Article III Creates our national judiciary.

Gonzales v. Raich Holding and Analysis Lindzy Hamel.

The Judicial Branch.

THE INCREASING NECESSITY

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation

The Clean Water Act and Oil & Gas Operations Professor Tracy Hester

Lecture 28 Chapter 9 The Right to Bear Arms.

The Right to Privacy IV Abortion Rights III

Free Exercise III (Smith Test and RFRA)

Jody Blanke Professor of Computer Information Systems and Law

Chapter 18 Judiciary.

Part 4: Sovereign Immunity and New Judicial Federalism

Federal Judiciary Lesson 12.

Lecture 31 The Commerce Power

Lecture 24 The Commerce Power

Lecture 30 The Commerce Power

Powers of the Supreme Court

Presentation transcript:

Constitutional Law Class 11: 2/1/2008 Prof. Fischer The Commerce Clause III 1995-present

United States v. Lopez (1995) Majority opinion of Rehnquist [C p. 153] (5-4: joined by Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O’Connor) New federalist approach to Commerce Clause

United States v. Lopez (1995) Concurrence of Justice Thomas [C p. 159] Suggests a new standard What about stare decisis?

United States v. Lopez (1995) Concurrence of Justice Kennedy, joined by O’Connor [C p. 157] Concerns about Constitutional structure and stare decisis

United States v. Lopez (1995) Dissent of Justice Breyer [C p. 162] (joined by Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg) “significant effects” test Deferential rational basis scrutiny 3 problems with majority holding

United States v. Morrison Case brought by Christy Brzonkala, a Va Tech student who sued 2 football players and Va Tech under s of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994: “[a]ll persons within the United Stats shall have the right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender.”

United States v. Morrison (2000) Majority opinion of Rehnquist (joined by Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, O’Connor) [C p. 165]

United States v. Morrison (2000) Concurring opinion of Justice Thomas [C p. 168]

United States v. Morrison (2000) Dissenting opinion of Justice Souter (joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer) [C p. 168]

Open Questions after Morrison What questions remain open after Lopez and Morrison?

Case Law after Lopez and Morrison: Narrow interpretation of statutes raising constitutional questions United States v. Jones (2000) [C p 170]: narrow construction of federal arson statute to avoid constitutional question Unanimous opinion by Ginsburg

Case Law after Lopez and Morrison Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: majority narrowly interprets § 404(a) of the Clean Water Act to not apply to intrastate waters that were a habitat for migratory birds

Case Law After Lopez and Morrison In two cases, the Supreme Court has upheld federal laws under the Commerce power Consider Souter’s statement in Morrison that he is conviced that “today’s ebb of the commerce power rests on error, and at the same time leads me to doubt that the majority’s view will prove to be enduring law.” Is it ENDURING LAW?

Pierce County, Washington v. Guillen (2003) [C p. 175] Authority to regulate “channels of interstate commerce.”

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005) [Supp. p. 29] Majority opinion by Stevens

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005) [Supp. p. 29] Majority opinion by Stevens

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005) [Supp. p. 29] Challenge to federal Controlled Substances Act brought by Angel Raich and Diane Monson, users of medical marijuana pursuant to CA Compassionate Use Act of 1996

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005) [Supp. p. 29] Majority opinion by Stevens (joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005) [Supp. p. 29] Concurring opinion by Scalia

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005) [Supp. p. 29] Dissent by O’Connor [joined by Rehnquist and Thomas as to all but Part III]

Gonzalez v. Raich (2005) [Supp. p. 29] Dissent by Thomas

Two other cases after Raich decided on statutory interpretation grounds Gonzalez v. Oregon (2006) [Supp. p. 42] Rapanos v. United States (2006) [Supp. p. 42]