POS lesson 15

Rehnquist beliefs

change over time on the court

* goes from writing a memo opposing Brown v Board “lone ranger“ → Chief

new deal revolution lead to

counter revolution of federalism

new deal- expanded federal power commerce clause

Federalism- expands state regulation of commerce, ensuring the power balance stays equal

Rehnquist Revolution

supporters and who opposed it

Supporters: Originalist

• text based focused on the original intent of the founding fathers

Anti: Living Constitutionalist or Purpotsist

• intention based, believes in updating the text into modern day issues

Federalism

the division of power between a central gov and state gov

• federal powers are enumerated

• states have general police powers which are reserved

the judiciary should protect the role of the states w/in the fed system and enforce textual limits on powers of congress

Commerce Clause interpretation

narrow

* SC protects the rights of states to legislate in ares of traditional state concern

why is federalism, separation of powers important

without limits one could obliterate the distinction between national and local government

Lopez v. US (1995)

what law was struck down?

Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990: Congress made it federal crime for anyone to possess a firearm within 1000 ft of a school zone

* Congress said this was in their power given in the Commerce Clause
* “regulate commerce among several states“

Lopez v. US (1995)

tenth amendment

powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution are reserved to the States

→ claims that this crime is a state issue not a fed government issue

Lopez v. US (1995)

why was it struck down?

Rehnquist quotes Fed no.45 (originalism, intent of the founding fathers)

* congress may not regulate intrastate activity that substantially affects commerce unless it is economic in nature

Lopez v. US (1995)

Lopez’s argument

commerce is buying and selling, which is not what he did w/ the gun

Lopez v. US (1995)

result

Strikes down 1990 act → new amended act which requires the gov to prove the firearm has moved in or affected interstate commerce

* Congress may regulate the channels (roads, train tracks) and instrumentalities (cars, trains)

US v. Morrison (2000)

what law was struck down?

violence against woman act of 1944

* federal cause of action so victims of gender-motivated violence could sue in federal court
* claimed that violence against women had extensive economic impacts

Rehnquist four factor tests to see if something affects interstate commerce

1. is the statue in Q a criminal law with relation to commerce or economic enterprise

2. does the law contain a “jurisdictional element“ that limits its self

3. are there congressional findings that detail the affect of regulated activity on interstate commerce

4. is the link between the activity and it’s effect on interstate commerce remote

US v. Morrison (2000)

why it was struck down

commerce clause does not permit Congress to regulate non economic intrastate (one state) activities in an area of traditional state control (police duties) → even if it substantially affects commerce

Background Provision: tenth amendment, powers not given to the fed belong to the states

do lopez and morrison promote new federalism

yes because the cases consider what regulations should be in fed or state hands

Controlled Substances Act 1970 (CSA)

repealed past drug legislation and attempted to codify (collecting and restating law, creation of legal code) the existing legislation into one cohesive act

* set the five groups (schedule 1-5) for rating drugs which banned the cultivation, possession, distribution of marijuana

CSA allowed what for states

each state to have it’s own laws governing drug use and allocating resources for enforcement

* tenth amendment: state gets power of enforcement (police powers)

California’s Compassionate Use Act 1996

permits both patients and caregivers to possess or cultivate marijuana for personal medical reasons, and exempts them from sanctions under other provisions in California criminal code

* seen as a conflicting law bc it allowed for use of marijuana for medical use

Background provisions for Gonzales v Raich (2005)

Supremacy Clause: Constitution is supreme law of the land

Tenth Amendment: any power not delegated to the Fed is given to the States

CSA: banned marijuana on fed level but allows states to create their own laws regarding drugs and enforcement

Cali Compassionate Use Act: allowed legal marijuana use for medical care

Gonzales v Raich (2005)

who is who

gonzales: attorney general/ petitioner

* Clement Solicitor General argued for US

Raich: raich and monson were medical users of marijuana, never purchased it

Gonzales v Raich (2005)

issue

does the commerce clause give congress power to prohibit the cultivation and use of marijuana in local markets?

* considers the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause

Gonzales v Raich (2005)

Clement’s argument

due to Wickard v. Filburn ( congress can regulate intrastate activities under the commerce clause, as long as individual activity had an impact on interstate commerce)

* marijuana grown at home can be an “economic activity” bc it substituted marijuana that could have purchased on the interstate market
* just like Filburn’s at home extra wheat

Gonzales v Raich (2005)

Raich’s argument

Filburn was different bc the act of farming was a commercial activity and raich were not apart of this activity

Gonzales v Raich (2005)

holding

Stevens’s opinion: congress can regulate “class activities“ that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce

economic activity: includes the production, distribution and consumption of commodities

Congress has the power to regulate economic activities when it a part of a larger regulatory scheme (CSA)

Gonzales v Raich (2005)

dissent

Rehnquist, O’Connor

• threatens to sweep all productive human activity into federal regulatory reacher

• the real problem is drawing the line between national and local issues

Thomas

• abandon post new deal jurisprudence; the court abandons any attempt to enforce Constitutional limits on federal power

• not consistent with congress’s enumerated powers to buy sell barter or transport across state lines

Standing Akimbo (2021)

denial of cert → what was the case

tax code which allow business to calculate their taxable income by subtracting gross revenue, cost of goods sold and other ordinary and necessary business expenses (rent and salaries)

petitioners who own a dispensary: are only allowed to subtract their cost of goods sold and not ordinary and necessary business expenses

→ meaning they owe more in federal tax income than other businesses

Standing Akimbo (2021)

statement of Justice Thomas

case is a prime example of the inconsistencies between federal and state marijuana enforcement

contradicts and unstable statue which strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary

the government’s action, allowing state legislation, is inconsistent to Raich, and may no longer have the power to intrude on State police powers

more about Justice Thomas’ statment

• is a shadow docket bc it was not issued after full briefing and argument on the merits

• federal polices since Gonzales v. Raich consistently prevent states from implementing medical marijuana laws

• fed government has the power to pass Controlled Substance Act

whats the impact of the Rehnquist revolution

new limits on Congressional powers

• commerce clause legislation

the tenth amendment is a limit on Congressional powers

• feds can not compel state legislative action