CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

• CLASS 7
• January 23, 2007
• The Commerce Clause I
• History of Interpretation Up to 1995

2
INTERPRETATION IMPORTANCE

• Tushnet
• only method practically available in US
  constitutional law to deal with change and its
  consequences for the constitutional code.

3
VAGUE TERMS Commerce,Among the . . . States

• COMMERCE CLAUSE ART. I 8, cl. 3 Congress has
  the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign
  Nations, and among the several States. . . .

4
GIBBONS v. OGDEN (1824) (CB p. 124)
5
SINCE GIBBONS

• Many cases before the Court have concerned the
  scope of the commerce power
• Over time, the Congress has used its commerce
  power to justify many pieces of legislation that
  may seem only marginally related to commerce.
• The Supreme Court of the United States has, at
  various points in history, been more or less
  sympathetic to the use of the Commerce Clause to
  justify congressional legislation

6
1895-1936

• Interpretation of commerce power broad or
  narrow?

7
United States v. E.C. Knight (1895) (CB p. 126)

• Could the Sherman Antitrust Act suppress a
  monopoly in the manufacture of a good (sugar) as
  well as its distribution?
• Suit by US vs. 5 sugar manufacturing companies to
  prevent a monopoly resulting after a stock
  purchase merger

8
United States v. E.C. Knight (1895) (CB p. 126)

• Justice Melville Fuller wrote the majority
  opinion, joined by 7 other justices
• Justice Harlan dissented

9
STREAM OF COMMERCE

• In some cases during this 1895-1936 period, the
  Court was willing to interpret the Commerce
  Clause to permit regulation of local activities,
  e.g. Swift Co. v. United States (1905) (stream
  of commerce theory) Shreveport Rate Cases (1914)
  (substantial effects theory),

10
Swift Co. v. United States (1905) (CB p. 129)

• Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court

11
Shreveport Rate Cases (1914) (CB p. 128)

• Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the majority
  opinion
• 2 justices dissented without opinion

12
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295
U.S. 495 (1935) (CB p. 135

• Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the
  majority opinion, joined by 6 other justices
• Justice Cardozo wrote a concurring opinion,
  joined by Stone

13
Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)
(CB p. 137)

• Justice Sutherland wrote the majority opinion
  (one of the Four Horsemen)
• Left the Court in 1938
• Justice Cardozo wrote a dissent, joined by
  Brandeis and Stone

14
Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton, 295 U.S. 330
(1935) (CB p. 135)

• Justice Roberts (the first) wrote the majority
  opinion
• Chief Justice Hughes joined by Brandeis, Stone,
  and Cardozo, dissented

15
Oyez Trivia Question

• Which baseball figure that is most like Justice
  Owen Roberts?
• A. Tony Mullane
• B. Bob Shawkey
• C. Charlie Gehringer

16
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) (CB p. 132)

• Justice Day wrote the majority opinion
• Powerful dissent by Justice Holmes (pictured
  left) (joined by McKenna, Brandeis, and Clarke

17
Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321 (1903) (CB p. 130)

• 5-4
• Majority opinion written by Justice Harlan
• Dissent by Chief Justice Fuller, joined by
  Brewer, Shiras, and Peckham