Constitutuional Law Notes: 07/26/10

JSA Georgetown Summer Session II, 2010
Congressional Law, Dr. Marty Sheffer

I. Federalism
a. When you create a system of government that is divided between central authority and the people, you have to realize that one of the two must emerge more supreme.
b. Article VI, Clause 2 is the Federal supremacy, in Amendment X the states are supreme. If they conflict, it refers to Article VI.
i. Marshall - National Federalism/Supremacy.
1. Marshall’s system is built on the proposition that the federal government conflict with each other in a world of superior and subordinate government respectively. This is to protect national power from state encroachment.
a. He also realized that the Supreme Court is an agency of the government, so therefore the Supreme Court must win. These decisions of the contest between the states and national aren’t state friendly.
2. This theory is dropped after his death and re-emerges after FDR’s attack.
3. Gibbons v. Ogden – he left out the word “exclusive” which meant that the states did have a role to play.
ii. Taney – dual supremacy.
1. According to Taney’s view, the U.S. came up with the idea that there are totally sovereign states. The Constitution is a compact of the separate states, not an ordinance of the people. (Kinda contradictory?) The National Government and the states face each other as equals across a fine line. Basically argues that the Supreme Court is the final say on the constitutionality of any action.
a. Strange, there is nothing mentioned in the original constitution about states…
2. N.Y. v. Miln (1837) – “The authority of the state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.”
a. This basically states by Taney that the states define first what their power is. When their power is determined, the federal government picks up the leftovers.
3. Chism v. Georgia – does the Supreme Court have the ability to decide something between an individual and the states? The court says yes. The power of the court to hear a question extends to controversies between an individual and a state. 11th amendment is quickly passed.
4. Note that if there should be Federal influence where there is nothing yet, the states operate until the Federal regulation can come in and the Federal Regulation supersedes it.
5. Hammer v. Dagenhart – mining and stuff is not commerce, but when it crosses state lines, it is inevitably commerce.
II. Printz v. U.S.
a. The court strikes down provisions on the basis that the federals may not compel the states to act a federal regulatory program, and in this case regulation of gun use.
III. National League of ___ v. Usery (1976) – Fair Labor Standards Act, Overtime pay clause. The original act specifically excluded the states form its coverage. 1974 added more provisions. By these amendments, Congress extended the minimum wage to all public jobs and political subdivisions. Rehnquist’s opinion – while the 10th amendment has been characterized as a truism, stating merely that all is retained what is not surrendered, the amendment expressly declares the constitutional policy that Congress may to exercise power that impairs the states’ integrity or the ability to function affectively in the federal system. We have repeatedly recognized that there are different attributes of sovereignty that are attached to the state governments that may not apply to Congress because the constitution prohibits it from exercising the authority in that manner.
IV. Pensylvania v. Nelson (1956) – Pennsylvania Sedition Act statute states that sedition against the state or the federal government is punishable, the dude is charged for federal threat of Communism. Does the Smith Act of 1940 (Not intended for Communism, just Nazism) supersede the Pennsylvania Sedition Act? They ruled yes. This was a Federal decision, not a Taney Dual Federalism decision.
V. New York and Saratoga Springs Commission v. U.S. (1946) – Issue is over bottled water. Can you put a federal tax on a state drawn resource of water? Yes. The Federal government is of all the states, so therefore they have to be under laws passed by Congress, so therefore the states had already approved it. Dual federalism can’t be applied.