Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The significance of the Commerce Clause is described in the Supreme Court's opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005): [7] [8] The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation.
The United States Constitution and its amendments comprise hundreds of clauses which outline the functioning of the United States Federal Government, the political relationship between the states and the national government, and affect how the United States federal court system interprets the law. When a particular clause becomes an important ...
Ten years later in 1923, another edition was published, Senate Document 96 of the 67th Congress, followed in turn by Senate Document 154 of the 68th Congress. The Constitution Annotated has been published as a bound edition every 10 years, with biannual updates in the intervening years that cover new constitutional case law.
The Dormant Commerce Clause, or Negative Commerce Clause, in American constitutional law, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution. [1] The primary focus of the doctrine is barring state protectionism.
Commerce Clause Rock Royal Co-op , 307 U.S. 533 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Commerce Clause allows federal regulation of milk processed and sold entirely within the state of New York because the company used a mixture of raw milk from farms within and outside the state of New York.
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which unanimously held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce.
The Coal Conservation Act is not within Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. Just because a commodity will, in the future, be sold in interstate commerce does not give Congress the right to regulate it before the event occurs. Court membership; Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes Associate Justices Willis Van Devanter · James C. McReynolds
Complete Auto claimed that its transportation was but one part of an interstate movement, and that the taxes assessed and paid were unconstitutional as applied to operations in interstate commerce. The Chancery Court, in an unreported opinion, sustained the assessments. [2] Complete Auto appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.