Select a Chapter to start the court case quiz.
Court case: United States v. E. C. Knight Co.
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.
Court case: United States v. Lopez
Beyer argues, in dissent, that there is no difference between substantial and significant effect.
Court case: Gonzales v. Raich
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.
the violence against women act should be left to the states.
none of these
Court case: A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Persons engaged in a slaughterhouse are clearly engaged in interstate commerce.
Court case: Maine v. Taylor
The Court finds that Maine has a legitimate state interest in banning fish from its state.
Court case: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Using the commerce clause to legislate against moral wrongs is valid.
Court Case: United States v. Morrison
A congressional finding of violence is enough for the Court to determine this violence affects the economy.
The Court rules that activities indirectly affecting commerce are outside the Congress’ bounds.
The states can regulate here because these transactions are purely intrastate.
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.
Court case: Wickard v. Filburn
For the Court, Gibbons makes it clear that the power to regulate commerce is
limited.
left to the states.
emphatic and all embracing.
Court case: Hammer v. Dagenhart
For Holmes, national welfare may require the states to act.
The Court argues that Morrison has no bearing on this case.
Court case: United States v. Darby
The Court simply says the 10th Amendment has nothing to say about this case.
Court case: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
The Court argues this case is not like Wickard because in Wickard the famer was passive.
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.
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 finds the state interest in stopping underage drinking does not hold.
Court case: Champion v. Ames
For the Court, the law does not interfere with the internal workings of any state.
Court case: Stafford v. Wallace
The Court creates the stream of commerce doctrine in this case.
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.
Souter argues that Wickard suggests
the violence against women act should be upheld.
the violence against women act should be struck.
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.
The Legislative history of the civil rights act suggests there is no impact of discrimination on interstate commerce.
Purely local acts never have an effect beyond the locality.
For the Court in Sebelius, states retain most of the power.
Court case: Southern Pacific Company v. Arizona
The Arizona law places a significant burden which is an impediment to interstate commerce.
The Court sees nothing wrong with child labor.
Court case: National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
The Congress has the power to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce.
Court case: Gibbons v. Ogden
To regulate commerce means full power over it with no room for the states.
For Fuller, the only purpose of the law is to
increase lotteries.
allow states to regulate lotteries.
suppress lotteries.
This industry is national and therefore Congress can regulate it.
Court case: Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
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
For the Court, the NLRB destroys the distinction between state and national affairs.
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.
The power to relieve citizens of the evils of monopolies lies with the states.
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.
The activities here are purely economic and so can be regulated.
Commerce is the intercourse of goods.
The power over navigation
is not part of commerce.
has been recognized since the nation began.
was never implied by the Framers.
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.
all of these
The Court decides that the statute here is a direct restriction on interstate trade.
The Court argues that regulations like the one here often produce a trade war between states.
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.
The Court says regulating commerce is not a forbidden power.
The Court argues that the Congress cannot regulate non-economic criminal conduct.
It is up to the state to justify its regulations when it discriminates against commerce.
Cardozo
concurs that this is intrastate commerce.
concurs but disagrees about intrastate commerce.
dissents and believes this is interstate 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.
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 Court considers stockyards
the end of manufacturing.
the beginning of manufacturing.
nothing to do with manufacturing.
the middle man in commerce and manufacturing.
There were no non-discriminatory alternatives here so the law was valid.
The Court says that Hammer is now overruled.
Court case: Cooley v. Board of Warrens
The 1789 law gives some power to states to regulate.
The Court is unhappy that the regulation focuses on what individuals do not do.
Stockyards, like sugar refineries are not part of commerce.
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.
According to Hammer, the Congress may require states to exercise police power.
The Court argues there is a new era of federalism since Lopez.
For the Court the 21st Amendment applies to the regulations here.
The Congress has the power to redefine distribution of power over interstate commerce.
This act here is meant to control the full market even if just local acts are affected.
Even while respecting a coordinate branch of government, the Court will invalidate laws that exceed constitutional bounds.
The Congress may regulate the channels of commerce.
For the Court, something becomes commerce when it moves from one state to another.
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.
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.
The Court cites McCulloch to justify that there is no limit to congressional power.
Navigation is only between nations and not between states.
A market does include the disposal of wheat.
The Congress may regulate
the channels of commerce.
the instrumentalities of commerce.
activities with a substantial effect on commerce.
The regulation of pilots does not constitute commerce.
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.
For the Court, Gibbons makes clear that travel is part of commerce
Harlan argues that states could actually control commerce much better than the federal government.
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.
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.
The sale of chickens here
is interstate commerce.
is not trade at all because the chickens are alive.
is intrastate commerce.
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 state has gone too far here and will not actually have an effect on safety.
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.
The grant of power here does not expressly exclude states from regulating.
The delegation here is constitutional.
