- Deny customers, deny sales = adverse affect.
- Ollie claims then white people won?t come.
HODEL v. VIRGINIA SURFACE MINING
- state have to regulate strip mining
- strip mining is cheaper thatn shaft mining
- federal regulation to put the top soil back.
- Substantial effect, quantitative ($5million) vs. % (.006)
- rational basis for concluding that surface coal mining has substantial effects on interstate commerce.
- Regulatory standards necessary for state competition.
HODEL v. INDIANA
-ct. said surface mining disturbed annual net.
- infintismal amount of acres of farmland
- ct. said not the volume of commerce, just that interstate commerce is affected.
U.S. v. LOPEZ
- has to limit congress, or else everything substantially effects the economy.
- Guns in school case
Congress passes a regulation pretending to be a tax
- child labor tax law
- power to tax is different from power to regulate.
- Congress doesn?t like to use taxes to discourtage activity.
- Uses its power to spend, do this and we?ll pay you (inducement)
U.S. v. BUTLER
-regulated agriculture, pay farmers for not growing.
- the tax payer objects, unconstitutional.
- Madison= congress can spend as long as they have the enumerated power.
- The ct. likes Hamilton?s view, spending power is not limited by regulatory authority, the ct. says it is.
STEWARD MACHINE CO. v. DAVIS
- Depression, unemployment insurance.
- Tax and spend to achieve
- Credit against tax if states set up unemployment insurance
- Objection by tax payer, coercion of the states
- States don?t care.
S. DAKOTA v. DOLE
-states can regulate for the general welfare
- 21 yr. old drinking law, or else withold federal highway funds to the states.
- Conditioned on highway spending
- A state, if it?s a non-recipient of federal money, will get the money if it wins the case.
- The restriction has to be reasonable, related to the purpose of spending.
- Coercion of the states v. compulsion, couldn?t force states to do something forbidden under the constitution.
- spending and taxing are independent activities, not limited to enumerated grants of authority, as long as its for the general welfare.
HELVERING v. DAVIS
- old age pensions, tax on employees.
- General welfare is not old people
- Whatever Congress says is the general welfare is the general welfare.
Treaties: MISSOURI v. HOLLAND
- migratory bird treaty act.
- Valuable as pest control
- 2/3 of the senate have to ratify the treaty
- Article 2, treaty made by the president.
- Have to pass an act, where does congress get the authority?
- Implied to make treaty effective
- Necessary and proper to make treaty effective
- Any limitation not specifically on the treaty is under the authorityof the U.S.
- A treaty could be violative of the constitution.
Immunities: 1) should the states be immune from federal taxation and regulation. NO, as long as the states ability to govern is not destroyed.
2.) should the federal gov?t be immune from state taxation and regulation? YES
- the state can?t tax the fed. Gov?t
- can?t impose regulations either, because fed. Gov?t supreme to the states
- federal actions can be subject to state regulations
- fed., state, and local don?t tax municipal bonds
- congress can tax bearer bonds.
- Federal regulation of the states v. 10th amend. State sovereignty.
MARYLAND v. WERTZ
- regulate wages and hours of state schools and hospitals
- effects interstate commerce
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
- 10th Amend and state sovereignty overruled MARLAND.
GARCIA v. SAN ANTONIO
- wages and hours of bus drivers
- overruled National League of Cities
- no more distinction between governmental and non-governmental functions.
- The only protection for the states from federal regulations is the political process.
***Congress cannot regulate for the general welfare, but it can tax and spend for the general welfare.
N.Y. v. U.S.
- waste disposal. States aren?t doing enough.
- Congress wants to direct producers on regulation of waste
- Congress could pass laws reaching the individual states regarding waste disposal
- Spending quo vast amount of federal money, paying the states to legislate.
- N.Y. said beyond the authority of congress to do this, outside of the commerce clause and outside of regulatory powers.
- Not enumerated, prohibited by the 10th amend.
- just take title to the states, responsibility of the state, increase costs for the states
- Telling the states how to spend money invades their sovereignty.
- States can?t waive their sovereignty, it is in trust with the people.
GREGORY v. ASHCRAFT p132
- fired because of old age, mandatory retirement age.
- Business affects interstate commerce
- Also applies to state employees, exempt are state policy makers, such as judges.
PRINTZ v. U.S.
- Brady Bill, congress told states law enforcement must run background checks on people purchasing guns.
- Sheriff said no, citing the 10th amend., controlling a state policy maker
- Congress didn?t have to pay for it, the state does.
- Makes the state officers puppets of Congress
- Congress can?t enforce federal law, seperation of powers, President v. congress
- President enforces federal law, not congress. The president is being cut out
- One branch will have too much authority. The court protects the states? rights.
Term Limits:
- Limiting the term of federal legislators and representatives.
U.S. TERM LIMITS INC. v. THORNTON
-incumbancy insures re-election
- power from seniority- chairman
- more money for the state
- disadvantage to the people
- interests change from representing the public to reassuring the re-election
- is it constitutional for a state to limit this term?
- Art. I sec. 5 of constitution does not permit it.
- State usurping federal power. Ct. said congress clearly does not have the power, its not enumerated.
- The power is then reserved to the state. No, because the states never had that right before the constitution. No pre-existing right, never reserved. These politicians didn?t exist.
- Neither can qualifications of politicians be added to term limits.
- Dissent the people have the power, the states can add it through them.
- There?s a constitutional amendment limiting the president?s term
II CONFLICT AMONG THE FEDERAL BRANCHES
- the constitution is designed to create conflic for a stronger gov?t. (checks and balances)
- there is an overlap in power
- an increase in one branch is at the expense of another branch
a. the power of the President- Chief Law Enforcement Officer
i. appoints secrets service, FBI, DEA, head of the agencies.
ii. Art. II ? 1 says ?herein granted?- this means he has power outside of this article.
iii. Scope of presidential varied w/ those in power.
iv. He orders people in his branch
v. Legislates to some extent
vi. Executive agencies pass laws
vii. Congress gives authority to the agencies to pass regulations
viii. President is the stronges legislator in our system by veto power.
Senate: 16 votes
House: 73 votes
***The court is the referee between the president and Congress.
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUB CO. v. SAWYER
- the secretary of commerce seized the nation?s steel mills
- the korean conflict led to a strike in the steel industry.
- Need the products for war tanks
- Pres. Truman, in order to prevent a strike, siezed it.
- How does the production continue?
- Ordered the sec. of commerce to do it, the ct. said no.
- Pres. is the Chief executive, the law making powers belong to congress.
- The only form of legislation is in the form of executive orders.
- Commander-In-chief of the armed forces, this is not a military decision,
- Private property is domestic, war is foreign.
- Congress?s job is to settle labor disputes through the commerce clause to keep the supplies going to the troops.
- Pres. asked for that power before, and congress didn?t give it.
- Limitation on the power of the pres.
- Categorize Executive power according to degrees.
STRONGEST- when with the expressed or implied consent of Congress
Medium ? when the pres. is acting and congress is silent
weakest – when the pres. is acting and congress has said no.
DANES & MOORE v. REGAN
- revolution in Iran, they siezed U.S. property, invaded our embassy and took hostages.
- Carter suspended claims in american courts, to let hostages free.
- He had no authority
- It was an executive order, congress agreed.
CLINTON v. N.Y.
- Line Item veto Act, power of the pres. from the Presentment Clause Art. 1 ? 6 (2) p.1442
- ?it? the whole bill, not part of it, sign ?it? or ?return it?
- Congress can give the president discretion to spend.
- If the law is passed and signed, congress has the authority to spend or not spend.
- This law gives him the right to change the law with his own pen
- Look at the language of the const.
- N.Y. was denied $ 2.6 billion from congress (spending power)
- It had standing, non-recipient, could win the money
- It wasn?t vetoed, it was cancelled.
- He signed it first, then cancelled it because congress gave him the power to cancel certain spending powers
A. the power of the President to appoint officers, Art. II ? 2 (2)
-the power to appoint is not absolute, conditioned by 2/3 of the senators present concur, combination of the two branches.
B. the president?s power of removal of officers (impeachment)
- the ct. said the power to appoint is together w/ the senate, but he has the power to remove all by himself.
- Does the pres. have to show cause for removal? NO, no formalities, just removal.
HUMPHREY?S EXECUTOR v. U.S.
- congress creates the cabinet positions, Federal Trade Commission
- president appoints the members
- they shall serve for a term of years
- ct. said it is not in the power of the president to remove the Federal Trade Commissioner without reasonable cause.
Independent Agency: not purely or solely executive
- Commissioner = quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial power, along with executive power
- Therefore reasonable cause is needed to remove.
- Hearings and regulations have the force of law, independent of the executive
*president can remove only executive officers w/out cause.
BUCKLEY v. VALEO
- Federal Election Commission, commissioners appointed by Senate & House
- Commisioners are going to enforce the law, executive officers.
- All appointed by the president in the appointment clause
BOUSHNER v. SYNAR
- Congress? power to tax and spend
- Created comptroller general by balanced budget and emergency deficit act of 1985
- Non-recipient of federal spending
- Comptroller general is an executive officer
- Congress says his power comes from congress, therefore they could remove him
- Congress can?t have the power to remove, they only have legislative power, not executive
- Only the president can remove
MORRISON v. OLSEN
- Ethics in gov?t Act, a better way to investigate high ranking officers.
- Special division of the court of Appeals of the district of Columbia appointed independent counsel to investigate, Morrison.
- Olsen was the asst. attorney general tried for perjury
- The atty. General cannot remove the independent counsel w/out ?good cause?
- The ability to remove the independent counsel is not essential
- The independent cousel is solely an executive office, it enforces the law.
- It doesn?t offend the separation of powers
- Scalia dissents: purely executive at the pleasure of the president
- Taking away executive power in the constitution
- The independent counsel has no other cases, the purpose is to weaken the power of the president, since he cannot remove him
- Strengthens congress?s power
MISTRETTA v. U.S.
- Congress passed a sentence reform act
- Permissible sentence- guidelines by congress, lack of uniformity among the sentences
- Federal guidelines binding on federal judges
- Defendant says this is unconstitutional , congress should set the guidelines, not an executive or judicial branch
- Majority says it does not offend the constitution
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS v. CITIZENS
- violates the seperation of powers
- congress trying to veto a law already passed
- it is the power of the executive to veto
***Source of Congressional Power ? Congress?s power to deal with foreign afairs not spelled out in the constitution, it is implied.
C. Art. II ? 3 ? the president decides what gov?t of nations that we recognize by receiving ambassadors
- then congress must have a residue of that power, implied.
*In the absence of a declaration of war, the president, as Commander-In-Chief, can send troops
- congress can cut off war spending if they don?t agree with the president.
- War Power Resolution Act- take the troops out in 60 days, is this act constitutional.
- A vietnam war soldier or his family would have standing to object
- The sup. Ct. said it?s a political question
- No judicial manageable standards
Executive Privilege: executive and judiciary in conflict, judiciary decides in favor of the judiciary.
U.S. v. NIXON
-tapes and documents relating to the president by the president
- subpoenas for the tapes
- Nixon claims absolute privilege
- Protecting office of the president from other branches and the prosecutor (national security)
- Art. II implies the privilege, legally protected right not to give evidence.
- Executive privilege not in the constitution
- For information received by the president from his advisors, inherent in the branch
- The privilege is needed or else:
i. can?t protect the advisors when they speak the truth. You have to ensure the officers that they can trust you and that you will not reveal that info. or their identity.
ii. separation of powers, its his own business, they can?t stick their nose in to find out what?s going on
- the court says there is an executive privilege found in a.) Art. II and b.) the separation of powers
- Nixon described the privilege as absolute, only when military concerns, diplomatic concerns, and/ or national security is concerned.
- Not an absolute privilege, it is conditional
- 6th amend. Importance of a trial
- District court was to listen to the tapes in private.
- Balance the injury to the presidency alongside the need to discover the truth
- This is the first time the judiciary officially recognized executive privilege
- The extent of the privilege is unknown
- Privilege is absolute if the matter involves national security, the military, or diplomacy.
NIXON v. ADMINISTRATION OF GENERAL SERVICES
- the president?s papers, materials, and recordings
- law enacted by congress said only Nixon?s materials
- could only get privat and not of general interest returned to Nixon
- is there a privilege? Is the privilege for a particular occupant or for the general office?
- A bill of attainder is mentioned twice in the constitution
- Congress nor the states shall issue a bill of attainder
- Legislative punishment of an individual or readily identifiable group of individuals without a judicial trial.
- Ct. said no, they don?t trust him as the custodian, not a punishment
- Its done for the future, not the past acts
- Preventing not punishment (still is a bill of attainder) contrary to a prior decision
- Because he resigned under a cloud, a class of one.
Executive Privilege and Immunity:
CLINTON v. JONES
- can the president be subject to a civil trial, not regarding his presidential activity?
- Yes , cannot stop the statute of limitations, it still runs and suit has to be brought
- If the suit regards his presidential actions, then he has immunity
POWER OF THE STATES TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE:
%