Con Law Federal Legislative Power

Marbury v. Madison

Facts:

• Adams is President, and loses to Jefferson.

• The President, by a new law, can appoint 42 new justices. Adams appointed and Senate confirmed them. Adams’ SoS was not able to send out all the commissions before Jefferson came into office.

• Jefferson told his SoS, James Madison, to withhold the commissions that had not yet been sent.

• Marbury, an appointed and confirmed justice, sued directly to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus against Madison pursuant to the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 for his commission.

Analysis

• Marbury has a right to the commission. Article II Sec. 2 states that the President shall appoint and Senate shall confirm judges. Court understands this to mean that once the President appoints and SoS signs the commission (indicating a Senate confirmation) the process is complete. Delivery is a mere convenience.

• The U.S. affords Marbury a remedy because of two reasons

  • Civil liberty in the U.S. is premised on where there is a legal vested right, there must be a legal remedy when the right is violated.

  • When it comes to the Executive, the Supreme Court can review ministerial acts (acts by the executive when it is a duty by law, that affect someones rights). The Supreme Court cannot review political acts, which are acts that the fall under powers given to the President by the Constitution (pardon, veto, etc). Marbury is a person who has a right to the commission and Madison had a duty assigned by law through the executive to deliver that commission. This makes the issue one of a ministerial act and one that can be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This establishes judicial review over the executive.

• The issue of whether the Court can issue the mandamus relies on two issues.

  • Is the mandamus the right remedy to seek? A mandamus is a writ that would force a government official to do a specific action, when a person has no other legal remedy. Yes, Marbury is asking for the correct legal remedy.

  • The second issue is whether the Court can issue the mandamus. In this case, Marbury sued pursuant to the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, which stated the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases where a person is seeking a writ of mandamus against a person holding office in the U.S. James Madison falls into this category. The problem is that the Constitution does not give the Court original jurisdiction in these cases. It states that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases of ambassadors, etc. It states that in all other cases the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction with such exceptions and regulations as the Congress shall make. This means Congress cannot alter the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, only their appellate jurisdiction. The Federal Judiciary Act goes directly against the Constitution. The Supreme Court points to the Supremacy Clause in Art. 6 Sec. 1 that states the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and federal law is below it. Since the Federal Judiciary Act is contrary to the Constitution and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, the Federal Judiciary Act is unconstitutional and therefore has not effect. The Court cannot hear the case of Marbury since it does not have original jurisdiction over his case. This establishes judicial review over the legislature.

McCullough v. Maryland

Facts

• Maryland created a law to tax the Bank of the United States, it would either have to pay 15,000 per year or 2% of all of its bank notes.

• The Bank of the United States refused to pay the tax. Maryland sued the cashier that refused to pay the tax at the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States.

• McCullough (the cashier) argued that the States cannot tax the federal government. Maryland argues that Congress did not have the power to create a bank.

Analysis

• The Supreme Court held two things. 1) The Congress did have the power to create a bank. 2) Maryland cannot tax the Bank of the United States.

1)

• The Constitution gives expressed powers and implied to Congress. Some of the expressed powers are to collect and lay taxes, raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy. The Constitution states in the Necessary and Proper Clause that Congress can make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to execute all powers given to it in the Constitution. Maryland argues that a bank is not “necessary” so Congress cannot make a bank. John Marshall states that necessary can mean useful, convenient, or indispensable. He states that here the Framers meant useful or convenient. Since creating a bank could be useful and convenient for collecting taxes and maintaining an army and navy, Congress can create a bank.

2)

• There are two reasons why Maryland cannot tax the Bank of the United States.

  • Taxation is a concurrent power. However, the Constitution gives the power to create the bank, it must also have the power to preserve it. Taxation has the power to destroy. If a state has the power to tax the Bank of the U.S., it could tax it at 100% and basically destroy the bank. Since Federal Laws are Supreme to State Laws, the Bank of the United States, created from a Federal Law, cannot be taxed by a State.

  • The federal government is made up of people in all 50 states. Laws passed by the Federal Government, such as the one establishing the National Bank is one that is for the benefit of all citizens in the U.S. Taxing the U.S. bank would give Maryland control over the bank and take money from it. Maryland taxing the U.S. bank can only be voted on by Maryland’s citizens and benefited by Maryland citizens. For this reason, the United States bank cannot be taxed by Maryland because you would be exercising power over all 50 states by one state.

Gibbons v. Ogden

Facts

• NY gives a monopoly to a company to run steamboats in New York’s waters. The company hires Ogden to operate a ferry between New York City and a port in New Jersey.

• Gibbons operates a competing ferry service between New Jersey and New York. This violates the monopoly New York gave Ogden.

• Gibbons argued that he could operate a ferry service between New Jersey and New York because he is licensed under federal law.

• Ogden sued for an injunction against Gibbons.

Analysis

• The New York law is unconstitutional.

• The Commerce Clause states that Congress shall have the power to regulate “commerce” among the several states. Ogden argues that Commerce does not include navigation of waters. John Marshall found that Commerce in the Constitution is equivalent to commercial intercourse, which includes navigation, traffic, and trade. John Marshall states that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate without limits.

• The Commerce Clause states that Congress has the power to regulate foreign commerce, interstate commerce and commerce with indian tribes. Since this power comes from the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause states it is Supreme to State Laws. Since the New York monopoly conflicts with the Congress’ power to regulate commerce (in this case, giving out federal licenses), the New York law is unconstitutional.

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

Facts

• The National Labor Relations Board found that Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. engaged in unfair labor practices, by busting unions, which conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act.

• Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. did not dispute this, but rather argued that since this conduct only took place in one factory in one state, Pennsylvania, it was intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce.

• It is imported to note that Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. is a large company. They own subsidiaries and factories in many states. They sell 75% of the steel outside of Pennsylvania and even owns there own railway.

Analysis

• The National Labor Relations Act does not exceed the scope of the Commerce Clause.

• The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among states. The Court states that the National Labor Relations Act deals directly with matters “substantially affecting commerce”. Although the labor dispute is happening in one state, the company is so large and a dispute in one steel factory in one state will still disrupt commerce in other states since the factory is an essential part of the flow of commerce. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate Commerce when it affects interstate commerce, no matter the source of the burden or obstruction to it.

United States v. Darby

Facts

• Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act to prevent shipment of products in interstate commerce in which the employees who made the good did receive a minimum wage of 25 cents/hour or worked over 40 hours without overtime pay.

• Darby was indicted for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

• He owns a lumber manufacturing business that is completely in Georgia, and he acquires all his lumber from in state. He then ships the finished lumber out of state to be sold.

Analysis

• Congress can regulate his activity through the Commerce Clause because he is engaged in interstate commerce.

• Darby argues that he cannot be regulated and forced to comply with minimum wage and overtime pay since:

  • he only manufactures lumber and manufacturing is not commerce.

  • his business is entirely in Georgia and is therefore not interstate.

• The Court holds that Congress can regulate interstate commerce and exclude goods from commerce if it causes harm to public, health morals or welfare in the state that it is shipped to.

• In this case the Court holds that Darby is engaged in interstate commerce.

  • Manufacturing IS commerce when the product he manufactured is sold.

  • His business is engaged in INTERSTATE commerce since he ships his lumber to be sold in states outside of Georgia.

Wickard v. Filburn

Facts

• Congress created the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prevent wheat surpluses or shortage which would in turn create extremely high and low prices.

• Filburn owned and operated a small wheat farm in which he grew wheat. He ate some, used some for his farm animals, and used some to trade with his neighbor.

• The Agricultural Adjustment Act was amended, and limited how much wheat Filburn could grow. Filburn grew an amount that was in excess of the authorized limit, and was fined for it.

Analysis

• Congress can regulate his activity because it is commerce and is therefore subject to the aggregation doctrine.

• Filburn argued that Congress cannot regulate his behavior because they could only regulate commerce that is interstate. He states that he is not interstate since he only grows wheat for himself and to trade with some neighbors.

• The Court holds that Filburn is indeed intrastate, but when an individual is engaged in commerce, even in intrastate commerce, they are subject to the aggregation doctrine.

• The aggregation doctrine, which states that the Court can consider the effect of the aggregate of all people engaged in the same activity.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Facts

• Heart of Atlanta Motel is near two interstate highways, promotes itself through national ads to out-of-state travelers, and approximately 75% of its guests are from out of state.

• The Motel refuses to rent rooms to black people.

• Congress used its Commerce Clause power to regulate interstate commerce in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited businesses from refusing service to black people.

Analysis

• Congress can use the Commerce Clause to pass laws that stop discrimination if discrimination affects interstate commerce.

• Heart of Atlanta Motel does not argue that they are interstate commerce. Rather, they argue that Congress is trying to regulate morality, not interstate commerce, through this law.

• The Court states that

  • It cannot review Congress’s intentions for passing a law. If they did, they would begin to engage in politics, which they cannot do according to the political question doctrine.

  • The only thing the Court will look at is whether discrimination affects interstate commerce. If it does, then the law is constitutional.

• During the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there was significant testimony from witnesses that explained how discriminatory business practices affect interstate commerce. Specifically, since black people could not find accommodations, they chose to travel less, which affected interstate commerce.

• Since Heart of Atlanta Motel is engaged in interstate commerce, its discriminatory practice burdens interstate commerce, and the Civil Rights Act does not conflict with a limitation on Congress, it is constitutional.

Katzenbach v. McClung, Sr. & McClung, Jr.

Facts

• The McClungs owned and operated Ollie’s Barbecue in Alabama. They serve both white and black people; however, only white people can sit down to eat at their restaurant. Black people must only buy takeout.

• Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits businesses engaged in interstate commerce from racial discrimination.

• Ollie’s Barbecue purchases $150,000 worth of food per year, and 46% of it comes from out of state.

Analysis

• Congress can prohibit racial discrimination against a business’s customers, using the Commerce Clause, if the business obtains a substantial amount of its materials through interstate commerce.

• Ollie’s argues that they are intrastate commerce.

• While passing the Civil Rights Act, Congress heard testimony that racial discrimination hurts the interstate commerce of the area.

• Additionally, in aggregate with other racially discriminatory businesses, they will affect interstate commerce.

• The Courts state that since Ollie’s receives a substantial amount of its materials through interstate commerce, therefore they are subject to regulation by Congress.

Perez v. United States

Facts

• Perez is a loan shark who performs “extortionate credit transactions”.

• His business is purely intrastate.

• Congress believes that loan sharks are in large part under the control of organized crime.

• Congress, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, passed the Consumer Protection Act, which makes extortionate credit transactions a crime.

Analysis

• Congress can use the Commerce Clause to make intrastate extortionate credit transactions a crime.

• Perez made two arguments

  • My business is purely intrastate, so Congress cannot regulate my behavior.

  • Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to make criminal law.

• The Court notes that the Commerce Clause deals with three types of problems:

  • Use of channels of interstate commerce that Congress determines is being misused (ex: shipping stolen goods)

  • Protection of instruments of interstate commerce (ie planes, people, or things in commerce)

  • Activities affecting commerce.

• In this case, Perez falls into the third category: Activities affecting Commerce.

• Congress, when passing the Consumer Protection Act, learned from the Urban Poor and Organized Crime Study that organized crime takes in over $350 million a year from loan sharking, and it’s their second largest revenue stream.

• The Court responds to Perez’s two arguments.

  • Despite the fact that Perez’s business is purely intrastate, in aggregate, it affects interstate commerce by using local activities of loan sharking to fund national crime organizations.

  • Even though the law makes certain commercial activities criminal, it has to do with interstate commerce, so Congress can regulate it.

United States v. Lopez

Facts

• Congress used the Commerce Clause to pass the Gun-Free School Zone Act, making it illegal to knowingly possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.

• Lopez, a Texas student, was arrested and charged with carrying a handgun on school grounds pursuant to the Gun-Free School Zone Act.

Analysis

• The Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to pass the Gun-Free School Zone Act.

• Lopez argues that he is not engaged in commerce since he was arrested for possession, and he is not engaged in anything interstate.

• The Government argues that, in aggregate, violence in schools substantially affects interstate commerce because it prevents people from going to school and becoming educated, it affects tourism in the area, and it increases national insurance costs. For this reason, Congress can regulate Lopez’s possession of a firearm on school grounds.

• The Court notes that the Commerce Clause deals with three types of problems:

  • Use of channels of interstate commerce that Congress determines is being misused (ex: shipping stolen goods)

  • Protection of instruments of interstate commerce (ie planes, people, or things in commerce)

  • Activities substantially affecting interstate commerce.

• The Court finds that you can only aggregate commercial behavior. If you can aggregate non-commercial behavior, everything would affect interstate commerce, and therefore, Congress can regulate everything. If the framers wanted Congress to regulate everything, they would not have had a need for multiple enumerated powers. Possession is not a commercial activity and therefore cannot be aggregated.

• Since Lopez’s activity is non-commercial and, in this instance alone, since it cannot be aggregated, it does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce; Congress cannot regulate the possession of a firearm on school grounds through the Commerce Clause.

United States v. Morrison

Facts

• Christy Brzonkala was raped by Antonio Morrison and James Crawford at Virginia Tech.

• Brzonkala filed suit against Morrison and Crawford under the Violence Against Women Act, which states that any person who commits a crime against a person because of their gender shall be liable to the injured party.

Analysis

• The civil remedies for gender based violence created in the Violence Against Women Act are NOT a Constitutional use of the Commerce Clause.

• The government argues that the Violence Against Women Act can regulate gender crimes because, in aggregate, gender based crimes substantially affect interstate commerce. Specifically, they argue that gender based crimes deter victims from transacting interstate business, it increases medical costs, and diminish national productivity.

• Gender based violence is a non-economic activity. Therefore, it cannot be aggregated.

• Since there is no evidence that one instance of gender based violence substantially affects interstate commerce, the Violence Against Women Act is not constitutional.

Gonzalez v. Raich

Facts

• Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, which made marijuana a schedule 1 drug, meaning it was illegal to distribute, dispense, or possess it.

• California passed the Compassionate Use Act, which allowed seriously ill residents to use marijuana for medicinal purposes if prescribed by a doctor.

• Angel Raich and Diane Monson are California residents who fall under the Compassionate Use Act. They grow marijuana in their backyard and consume it because, without it, they would be in extreme pain and possibly die.

• Raich and Monson sued the AG and the head of the DEA for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Controlled Substances Act.

Analysis

• Congress can regulate the local growing and use of marijuana that is legal under state law, using the Commerce Clause.

• Raich and Monson argue that Congress cannot regulate their behavior under the Commerce Clause because:

  • Growing and consumption of marijuana is not commerce

  • Even if it is commerce, it’s purely intrastate

  • California law allows them to grow and consume marijuana

• The Court holds that

  • Growing something that has value is inherently commercial, as in United States v. Darby.

  • Since growing is commercial, their behavior can be aggregated. The purpose of the Controlled Substances Act is to regulate the weed market and eliminate it from the market. Since it is difficult to distinguish between homegrown weed in California and other weed on the national market, the homegrown weed could end up in the national market without the government’s knowledge. This, aggregated with all other Compassionate Use Act users, could ruin the purpose of the CSA.

  • Although California allows some residents to use weed, federal law prohibits it for everyone. Since Federal Law is Supreme to State law according to the Supremacy Clause, the Compassionate Use Act is unconstitutional for being contrary to Federal law.

Printz v. United States

Facts

• Congress passed the Brady Act, which requires the AG to create a national background check system for firearm sales.

• Until the AG creates the system, the Brady Act requires state law enforcement agencies to perform background checks using their own systems before issuing permits for firearms.

• Printz is the chief law enforcement officer for his country in Arizona. He filed suit challenging the Brady Act, arguing that the federal government cannot force state executive officers to enforce federal law.

Analysis

• Two holdings

  • Under the Commerce Clause, Congress can require a background check every time someone purchases a firearm.

  • The Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to force state executives to enforce federal law.

• The first holding can be explained by simply stating that buying a firearm is commerce and can be aggregated to show that gun violence affects interstate commerce.

• The Court looks at three things to determine whether the federal government can force state executives to enforce federal law.

  • Historical practice

  • Structure of the Constitution

  • Precedent from the Supreme Court.

• Historical practice: Congress once passed a law requesting that states hold federal prisoners in their state prisons, but this was merely a request that the states could deny. Additionally, Congress has attached conditions to funding, but once again, states could deny the extra funding.

• Structure of Constitution: There is a dual sovereignty between the federal government and the states created by the 10th Amendment. The Constitution explicitly states that the President executes federal laws. It does not allow the responsibility to be transferred to the states. If Congress could force the states to execute federal law, it would weaken the executive’s power.

• Supreme Court precedent: In a past case, Congress tried to force the NY legislature to pass laws that would have to be enforced by state executives. This is basically just circumventing the process because instead of telling state executives to enforce federal law, they force the state legislature to pass the same law that the state executive will have to enforce.

• In short, Congress, in trying to force the state executive to enforce federal law, violates the anti-commandeering principle which states the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal law.

Sabri v. United States

Facts

• Sabri is a real estate developer in Minneapolis. He offered three bribes to the city councilman in charge of the Minneapolis Community Development Agency to win the bid for a development contract.

• Congress used its taxing and spending power to pass 18 USC 666, which made it a federal crime to bribe an agent of the government in any business transaction of $5,000 or more. For the act to be criminal, the agency the person bribed must receive 10,000 or more in federal funds or assistance.

• In the year that Sabri bribed the councilman, the Minneapolis Community Development Agency used $23 million in federal funds.

• Sabri was indicted under 18 USC 666 for bribing the city councilman.

Analysis

• Congress can create laws, using the Taxing and Spending Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, that ensure federal funds are not misspent.

• Sabri argued that the money that was being used for the development he wanted to build was not federal money.

• The Spending Clause states that Congress can spend money for the general welfare. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to make laws to ensure that the money is not misspent. Part of that includes ensuring that bribes do not happen, that will make the money misspent.

• To Sabri’s claim that the money he was going to be given was not federal money, the Court states:

  • Since money is fungible, once federal money is commingled, the federal government can create laws for that entire pot of money.

  • Additionally, the Court notes that in this case, Sabri was not really after the small amount of local funds, but rather the large amount of federal funds.

South Dakota v. Dole

Facts

• South Dakota allows people 19 years old and above to buy and drink beer that contains up to 3.2% alcohol.

• Congress passed the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Amendment, which requires the Transportation Secretary to withhold up to 5% of federal highway funds from states that allow people under 21 to buy or drink alcohol.

• South Dakota sued, arguing that the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Amendment violates limitations on the Taxing and Spending Power and the 21st Amendment.

Analysis

• Congress can put conditions on federal grants so long as it does not violate the limitations on the Spending Power.

• The Taxing and Spending power allows Congress to collect taxes, to pay for debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

• The Spending Power has the following limitations

  • The spending must be for the general welfare.

  • The conditions on the funds must be clear and unambiguous so that the States can make their choice fully knowing the consequences of their decision.

  • The condition grant must be related to the federal interest in that particular program.

  • The conditional grant must not violate any other part of the Constitution.

  • The conditional grant cannot be coercive.

• In this case, the first 4 conditions are not up for debate. The spending is for the general welfare, the grant is unambiguous, the federal government has an interest in making sure its roads are safe from underage drinking and driving, and it does not violate any explicit part of the Constitution.

• South Dakota argues that the National Minimum Drinking Age Amendment violates the anti-commandeering principle because it is coercing it to change its laws.

• The Court holds that withholding 5% of the funds is not coercive since it is a relatively small amount of the funds they will receive. They will still receive 95% of the funds.

Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder

Facts

• Congress passed the Voting Rights Act to enforce the 15th Amendment, which prohibits denying voting based on race or previous condition of servitude.

• Section 5 of the Act required covered states to obtain federal pre-clearance, through the AG, before passing any legislation on voting. To obtain pre-clearance, states would have to show that the law had neither the purpose nor the effect of denying the right to vote based on race or color.

• Section 4 of the Act stated that the covered jurisdictions were states that had less than 50% voter registration or turnout in the 1964 election, or states that had voting tests, ballot taxes, and other discriminatory tests.

• Congress kept renewing the act, and in 2006, the Act was renewed for another 25 years. With each renewal, the restrictions on covered states became greater; however, the coverage formula still used data from 1972.

• Shelby County, Alabama, a covered district, sued for declaratory relief, arguing Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.

Analysis

• Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act are unconstitutional.

• Under the normal constitutional structure, states do not require pre-clearance to pass legislation, particularly voting legislation, since the Elections Clause delegates that power to the states. Normally, states pass laws, and then it is challenged in the Court. There are also the principles of federalism and equal sovereignty among states.

• The Voting Rights Act departs from our typical constitutional principles.

• The Court notes that every time it upheld Sections 4 and 5 of the Civil Rights Act, it was an unconstitutional piece of legislation. However, the needs at that time outweighed the burden on the state. The Courts upheld pre-clearance despite it being unconstitutional because, without it, the harm would be so large in denying black citizens from voting. Alabama repeatedly ignored Court orders deeming its discriminatory voting laws unconstitutional.

• However, the current burden is not justified by the current needs. Alabama is not the same as it was in 1965. In 1965, Alabama only had a 19% voter registration from black people. Now it’s significantly higher; they do not have voting tests, and there are record numbers of black people in elected office in Alabama.

• The Court understands the concern of the dissent that Alabama is only racially neutral now because of the Voting Rights Act; however, if we follow that logic, the Act could never be challenged in Court.

What type of case is Marbury v. Madison?

• Jurisdiction

• Judicial Review

What type of case is McCullough v. Maryland?

• Congress and the States

• Necessary and Proper Clause (necessary being useful, convenient)

• Supremacy Clause

What type of case is Gibbons v. Ogden?

• Commerce Clause

• Necessary and Proper Clause

• Commerce as “Commercial intercourse”

• The power to “regulate without limitations”

• Supremacy Clause

What type of case is NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.?

• Commerce Clause

• Congress can regulate Commerce “Among the States” means “Substantially affects”

• It is not the source of the burden but rather the effect on interstate commerce that allows Congress to regulate it.

What type of case is United States v. Darby?

• Commerce Clause

• Manufacturing is commerce when what you manufacture is sold.

• His business involved interstate commerce at the end when he shipped the goods and sold them outside of his state.

What type of case is Wickard v. Filburn?

• Commerce Clause

• Intrastate Commerce

• Aggregation doctrine

What type of case is Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States?

• Commerce Clause

• Commerce Clause to enact Civil Rights Legislation

• Courts will not review Congress’s intention in passing laws as they would be engaging in politics.

What type of case is Katzenbach v. McClung, Sr. & McClung Jr.?

• Commerce Clause

• Commerce Clause to enact Civil Rights Legislation

• Obtaining materials for your business through interstate commerce = Congress can regulate you through the Commerce Clause.

What type of case is Perez v. United States?

• Commerce Clause

• The Commerce Clause can be used to make criminal law (ie make criminal activities that affect interstate commerce)

• Aggregation doctrine

What type of case is Lopez v. United States?

• Commerce Clause

• You cannot aggregate non-commercial activity

• Possession is NOT commercial.

• Check on the Commerce Clause power

• Criminal Case

What type of case is United States v. Morrison?

• Commerce Clause

• You cannot aggregate non-commercial activity

• Gender based violence is NOT a commercial activity.

• Check on the Commerce Clause

• Civil Case

What type of case is Gonzalez v. Raich?

• Commerce Clause

• Growing is commerce

• Intrastate commercial activity for personal consumption can be aggregated

• Supremacy Clause

What type of case is Printz v. United States?

• Commerce Clause

• Anti-commandeering principle

What type of case is Sabri v. United States?

• Spending Clause

• Necessary and Proper Clause

• Federal Money is fungible

What type of case is South Dakota v. Dole?

• Spending Power

• Conditional Grant

• Limitations on the Spending Power

• Anti-commandeering principle

What type of case is Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder?

• Civil War Amendments

• Current burdens must be justified by current needs.