1. Constitutional Law I Review Session Apr. 29, 2005

2. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim2 Issue Spotting The Medical Research Act (MRA) provides federal funds to public and private institutions in the United States for medical research. Some of those funds are granted to Cascade State University (CSU) [Cascade is one of the 50 States]. CSU has a vigorous research program using embryonic stem cells. Because stem cells are derived from human embryos, the research is very controversial. Yet, it may lead to cures for many diseases. President Bush is opposed to stem cell research. He asked Congress to amend MRA to prohibit stem cell research in the United States, and to give him the authority to cancel research grants to any recipient that engaged in forbidden research. Spending power Conditional grants to states enumerated powers Delegation (SoP)

3. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim3 Issue Spotting Congress held hearings where religious, medical and ethical experts testified that stem cell research endangered the public health and morals, and diverted funds from other vital research programs. Congress found “that medical research using embryonic stem cells discriminates against other research programs; that it is neither necessary nor proper to promote interstate commerce; and that it is antithetical to the general welfare.” Lopez: Cong’l Findings Spending, not commerce commerce Section 5

4. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim4 Issue Spotting Congress then amended MRA to prohibit all embryonic stem cell research in the United States, “except as permitted by the President to promote the public health.” Also, “any person aggrieved by the conduct of stem cell research may bring suit against any public or private entity to enjoin prohibited research activities, and to recover damages.” Lopez: substantial effect Delegation: zone 1 Intelligible principle Standing (discrete injury) Abrogation (clear statement)

5. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim5 Issue Spotting After Congress amended MRA, President Bush ordered every institution conducting stem cell research to cease its research within 30 days, or face the loss of all federal funds. Darwin is the President of CSU. He believes that President Bush’s order and the amended MRA are unconstitutional, and has directed University faculty to ignore them. S.Dak. v. Dole State officer / stripping Regulation of states

6. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim6 Issue Spotting When 30 days elapsed, the President ordered the withholding of all federal funds from CSU, including student loans and grants to every University department. He also ordered that all patents issued to CSU involving stem cell research be revoked. Despite this, President Darwin ordered stem cell research to go forward, using non-federal funds. Substantial relation preemption Exec. order Ultra vires

7. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim7 Issue Spotting Faith Healers of America (FHA) is an association of practitioners who believe that prayer is a more effective cure for most ailments than is modern medicine. They claim that “stem cell research is contrary to their philosophical beliefs and a threat to their livelihoods, since any advance in medical research could draw patients away from FHA members.” FHA has filed suit in federal court against CSU and Darwin, and asked the court “to shut down CSU’s illegal stem cell program, and award damages.” CSU has filed its own suit, against President Bush, seeking a declaration that his orders are unconstitutional. Associational standing Philosophic injury Hohfeldian injury Causation (3d parties) redressability 11 th amd Decl. relief Stripping / abrogation waiver

8. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim8 Summary Spending power Conditional grants to states enumerated powers Delegation (SoP) Lopez: Cong’l Findings Spending, not commerce commerce Section 5 Lopez: substantial effect Delegation: zone 1 Intelligible principle Standing (discrete injury) Abrogation (clear statement) S.Dak. v. Dole State officer / stripping S.Dak. v. Dole State officer / stripping Associational standing Philosophic injury Hohfeldian injury Causation (3d parties) 11 th amd Decl. relief Stripping / abrogation Regulation of states Exec. order Ultra vires waiver redressability

9. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim9 Summary Spending power Conditional grants to states enumerated powers Delegation (SoP) Lopez: Cong’l Findings Spending, not commerce commerce Section 5 Lopez: substantial effect Delegation: zone 1 Intelligible principle Standing (discrete injury) Abrogation (clear statement) S.Dak. v. Dole State officer / stripping S.Dak. v. Dole State officer / stripping Associational standing Philosophic injury Hohfeldian injury Causation (3d parties) 11 th amd Decl. relief Stripping / abrogation Regulation of states Exec. order Ultra vires waiver redressability

10. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim10 Summary Standing Discrete Injury Philosophical Injury Causation Associational Standing Declaratory Relief Congressional Power General Welfare Spending Power Conditional Grants to States S. Dakota v. Dole Com Clause / Lopez Substantial Effects Congressional Findings Economic effects Section 5 Congruence / Proportionality Section 1 violations Separation of Powers Delegation Intelligible Principle Jackson Zone 1 Jackson Zone 2/3 State Sovereignty 10 th Amendment Version 1 (enumerated power) Version 2 (reg’n of states) Version 3 (commandeering) 11 th Amendment Abrogation Clear statement rule Stripping Injunctions / Damages Waiver

11. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim11 Summary Standing Discrete Injury Philosophical Injury Causation Associational Standing Declaratory Relief Congressional Power General Welfare Spending Power Conditional Grants to States S. Dakota v. Dole Com Clause / Lopez Substantial Effects Congressional Findings Economic effects Section 5 Congruence / Proportionality Section 1 violations Separation of Powers Delegation Intelligible Principle Jackson Zone 1 Jackson Zone 2/3 State Sovereignty 10 th Amendment Version 1 (enumerated power) Version 2 (reg’n of states) Version 3 (commandeering) 11 th Amendment Abrogation Clear statement rule Stripping Injunctions / Damages Waiver

12. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim12

13. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim13

14. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim14 Analysis Standing Discrete Injury  Philosophical Injury  Hohfeldian Injury Causation Associational Standing Declaratory Relief

15. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim15 Analysis Congressional Power General Welfare Spending Power  Conditional Grants to States  S. Dakota v. Dole Commerce Clause / Lopez  Channels/Instrumentalities Substantial Effects  Congressional Findings  Economic effects

16. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim16 Analysis Congressional Power Section 5  Congruence / Proportionality  Section 1 violations

17. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim17 Analysis Separation of Powers Delegation  Intelligible Principle  Jackson Zone 1  Jackson Zone 2/3

18. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim18 Analysis State Sovereignty 10 th Amendment  Version 1 (enumerated power)  Version 2 (regulatioin of states qua states)  Version 3 (commandeering)

19. Spring, 2005Con Law I - Manheim19 Analysis State Sovereignty 11 th Amendment  Abrogation Clear statement rule  Stripping Injunctions / Damages  Waiver