Select a Chapter to start the court case quiz.
Court case: Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
It is up to the state to justify its regulations when it discriminates against commerce.
Court case: United States v. Darby
The Court says regulating commerce is not a forbidden power.
Court case: Southern Pacific Company v. Arizona
The Arizona law places a significant burden which is an impediment to interstate commerce.
Court Case: United States v. Morrison
A congressional finding of violence is enough for the Court to determine this violence affects the economy.
The matters in question here include
nature of the burden placed.
the extent of the burden placed.
both the nature and the extent of the burden placed.
neither the nature and the extent of the burden placed.
Court case: Gibbons v. Ogden
Commerce is the intercourse of goods.
Court case: Champion v. Ames
The Court cites McCulloch to justify that there is no limit to congressional power.
Court case: United States v. Lopez
The Congress may regulate
the channels of commerce.
the instrumentalities of commerce.
activities with a substantial effect on commerce.
all of these
Court case: National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
To determine if something affects commerce you must
know of the effect on commerce.
know the source of the injury.
both know of the effect on commerce and the source of the injury.
neither know of the effect on commerce and the source of the injury.
Beyer argues, in dissent, that there is no difference between substantial and significant effect.
Court case: Gonzales v. Raich
The activities here are purely economic and so can be regulated.
Court case: Cooley v. Board of Warrens
The grant of power here does not expressly exclude states from regulating.
Souter argues that Wickard suggests
the violence against women act should be upheld.
the violence against women act should be struck.
the violence against women act should be left to the states.
none of these
Court case: Maine v. Taylor
The Court finds that Maine has a legitimate state interest in banning fish from its state.
Court case: Stafford v. Wallace
The Court considers stockyards
the end of manufacturing.
the beginning of manufacturing.
nothing to do with manufacturing.
the middle man in commerce and manufacturing.
Court case: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Allowing the Congress to regulate those who are doing nothing
is within the Congress’ power.
is beyond the Congress’ power.
is a power only states should have.
Court case: Wickard v. Filburn
Purely local acts never have an effect beyond the locality.
The Court argues there is a new era of federalism since Lopez.
The Congress may regulate the channels of commerce.
This industry is national and therefore Congress can regulate it.
Court case: United States v. E. C. Knight Co.
The power to relieve citizens of the evils of monopolies lies with the states.
The consumption of home grown wheat
has no influence on the market.
has substantial influence on the market.
affects the market only in a state.
Court case: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
The Passenger Cases indicates that intercourse incudes
travel in one state.
no travel at all.
travel between states.
travel from city to city in a state.
The Court admits that states do have some power especially when it comes to protecting foodstuffs.
The Court argues that the state’s protection against parasites is illegitimate.
This act here is meant to control the full market even if just local acts are affected.
For the Court, the NLRB destroys the distinction between state and national affairs.
There were no non-discriminatory alternatives here so the law was valid.
Navigation is only between nations and not between states.
As most of the hotel operations are local,
the Congress may regulate them,
the Congress may not regulate them.
only state may regulate them.
only cities may regulate them.
Harlan argues that states could actually control commerce much better than the federal government.
The right of due process is that the Constitution is the only clause that someone may assert to justify sending lottery tickets through the mail.
The 1789 law gives some power to states to regulate.
If the federal government controlled all aspects of commerce,
the uniformity would make things a lot easier.
states would have more power.
states would have no power.
Court case: Granholm v. Heald
The Court argues that regulations like the one here often produce a trade war between states.
Court case: A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Cardozo
concurs that this is intrastate commerce.
concurs but disagrees about intrastate commerce.
dissents and believes this is interstate commerce.
The Court uses Wickard to suggest that
the Congress has no power under the commerce clause.
states have all power under the commerce clause.
local activities can an effect on interstate commerce.
The state has gone too far here and will not actually have an effect on safety.
For the Court, the law does not interfere with the internal workings of any state.
For the Court, Gibbons makes it clear that the power to regulate commerce is
limited.
left to the states.
emphatic and all embracing.
The power over navigation
is not part of commerce.
has been recognized since the nation began.
was never implied by the Framers.
The Court
upholds the individual mandate in the ACA.
strikes the individual mandate in the ACA.
compromises on how far Congress can go with the ACA.
For Fuller, the only purpose of the law is to
increase lotteries.
allow states to regulate lotteries.
suppress lotteries.
Court case: Hammer v. Dagenhart
The end here may be good but
cannot be attained in this way.
the federal government has to do its own work.
states can always be forced to take this action.
The sale of chickens here
is interstate commerce.
is not trade at all because the chickens are alive.
is intrastate commerce.
The Court argues that Morrison has no bearing on this case.
The Court is unhappy that the regulation focuses on what individuals do not do.
For the Court, in EC Knight
manufacturing is part of commerce.
manufacturing proceeds commerce.
manufacturing is the end of commerce.
manufacturing is controlled by the federal government.
For the Court, Lopez
does not control here.
controls in this case.
has nothing to do with Morrison.
means the Court should uphold the violence against women act.
The Congress has the power to redefine distribution of power over interstate commerce.
Using the commerce clause to legislate against moral wrongs is valid.
For the Court, something becomes commerce when it moves from one state to another.
The dissenters
believe this case protects state power.
believe this case destroys state power.
believe this case has no effect on inter or intrastate commerce.
For the Court, Gibbons makes clear that travel is part of commerce
Stockyards, like sugar refineries are not part of commerce.
The regulation based on “closed containers”
is suspect for the Court because apples are not sold in shipping containers.
is suspect for the Court because apples are sold in shipping containers.
is suspect because all state laws are suspect for commerce.
none of the above
The Congress has the power to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce.
The Court argues that the Congress cannot regulate non-economic criminal conduct.
The Court finds the state interest in stopping underage drinking does not hold.
The Court says that Hammer is now overruled.
A market does include the disposal of wheat.
The dissenters argue that
the state should have this power.
the case should be decided by elected officials.
the federal government has no role here.
According to Hammer, the Congress may require states to exercise police power.
The Court simply says the 10th Amendment has nothing to say about this case.
The Court rules that activities indirectly affecting commerce are outside the Congress’ bounds.
For Holmes, national welfare may require the states to act.
The Court argues this case is not like Wickard because in Wickard the famer was passive.
The Legislative history of the civil rights act suggests there is no impact of discrimination on interstate commerce.
What would happen, according to the Court, if the Congress had no limits on commerce power?
Nothing
The judiciary would be weaker.
The state power would be obliterated.
The Court creates the stream of commerce doctrine in this case.
Even while respecting a coordinate branch of government, the Court will invalidate laws that exceed constitutional bounds.
Lottery tickets
cannot be regulated.
may be regulated under some conditions.
always stay within a state.
are subjects of traffic and therefore part of commerce.
For the Court, regulation of interstate commerce
has clear and specific restrictions.
is left to the states.
is left to the courts.
has no restriction for the Congress.
For the Court the 21st Amendment applies to the regulations here.
The Court sees nothing wrong with child labor.
For the Court in Sebelius, states retain most of the power.
In dissent, O’Connor argues that
states should be allowed to experiment with policies such as this one.
states are fully subject to the federal government in economic activities.
To regulate commerce means full power over it with no room for the states.
The delegation here is constitutional.
Persons engaged in a slaughterhouse are clearly engaged in interstate commerce.
The Court decides that the statute here is a direct restriction on interstate trade.
The regulation of pilots does not constitute commerce.
The enumeration of power over commerce
means the federal government only has power over foreign actions.
means the federal government only has power over intra-state commerce.
means the federal government has power over actions applied to states.
The states can regulate here because these transactions are purely intrastate.
