Substantive Law Study Support

Questions for Analysis and Responses

1. Reread Living with the Constitution at the beginning of the chapter. Marcia Hsu wants to introduce several bills. As a member of Congress, which, if any, of the bills deals with an area within the federal legislative power? Specify which federal power justifies each bill.
(This question calls for some opinion.)

• A bill creating universal health care for all Americans: Such a bill would certainly substantially affect Interstate Commerce considering the amount of money spent on health care nationwide.
• A bill making possession of marijuana on school grounds a federal crime: Such a bill is probably not valid under the Lopez case. Simple possession does not involve commerce.
• A bill requiring that all public libraries install Internet filters on computers available to the public: The Internet is clearly an instrument of Interstate Commerce, and such a bill would be lawful if it did not abridge the First Amendment.
• A bill limiting both federal and state income tax: A bill limiting federal income tax would clearly be within congressional power (Sixteenth Amendment) but not a bill limiting state tax.

2. Answer the following questions regarding the case McCulloch v. Maryland.

a. Why did Maryland claim that the federal government could not establish a national bank?
Maryland claimed that the federal government was not given express power and it was not necessary to any express power. The state gave necessary and proper a very literal interpretation.
b. Why did the federal government claim that the Maryland tax was unconstitutional?
The government claimed that taxation violated the notion of supremacy. The following language explains:
“This great principle is, that the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them. That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. The American people have declared their constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, to be supreme; but this principle would transfer the supremacy, in fact, to the states.”

3. Answer the following questions regarding the case Gibbons v. Ogden.

a. How did the Supreme Court define interstate commerce?

“Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse.”
b. Did the Court believe that states could also regulate interstate commerce?

Yes, but if conflicts occurred, the federal laws prevailed under the Supremacy Clause.

4. Answer the following questions regarding the case Wickard v. Filburn.

a. Why did Filburn believe that he was not involved in interstate commerce and that therefore the federal law should not apply to him?
The wheat he grew was produced and consumed locally for his own use and, therefore, no commerce was involved.
b. What argument did the government make supporting the fact that the quota should apply to Filburn?
Local consumption affected the amount of wheat in interstate commerce. The wheat industry had been a problem industry for some years. The decline in the export trade left a large surplus in production that, in connection with an abnormally large supply of wheat and other grains, caused congestion in a number of markets.

5. Answer the following questions regarding the case United States v. Lopez.

a. Why does Justice Rehnquist believe that before an activity can be regulated by Congress it must substantially affect interstate commerce, rather than just affect it?
Rehnquist examined past cases and found that the Court generally required substantial impact, not just an affect, on interstate commerce. To hold otherwise would result in virtually no limit on the activities Congress could regulate.
b. Why did Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg disagree with Chief Justice Rehnquist?
The justices believed that the power to regulate interstate commerce encompassed the power to regulate local activities insofar as they significantly affect interstate commerce. Furthermore, they believed that in determining whether a local activity has a significant effect upon interstate commerce, a court must consider, not the effect of an individual act (a single instance of gun possession), but rather the cumulative effect of all similar instances. They also believed that the Court must give Congress leeway in determining the existence of a significant factual connection between the regulated activity and interstate commerce.

Assignments and Projects

1. Using basic research skills, determine how many bills in the latest congressional session refer to interstate commerce. Describe five different types of bills.
Answers will vary, but possible responses may include H.R.5 Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011; H.R.58 Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act; H.R.873 Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2011; H.R.1098

Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011; or similar bills. Descriptions should focus on how the bill would impact interstate commerce.

2. Complete the following case brief.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

Judicial History: Appealed from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio when the court prohibited the secretary of agriculture and other appellants from enforcing certain penalties against the farmer appellee under the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

Facts: Pursuant to a federal law, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, a quota was imposed on the appellee, Filburn, a farmer, limiting the amount of wheat he could grow even though the wheat was grown entirely for his own use. Filburn exceeded the quota, and a fine was imposed. He refused to pay the fine.

Issue: Is Congress validly using its power to regulate interstate commerce when it enacts a law that allows quotas to be placed on the amount of wheat that can be grown when the wheat is entirely for the farmer’s own use?

Holding: Yes, Congress is validly using its power to regulate personal use of wheat when the aggregate effect of all farmers using personal wheat will have a detrimental effect on interstate commerce.

Rationale: The aggregate volume of wheat grown for home consumption by farmers would have a substantial influence on pricing in the wheat market. In addition, farmers who grow wheat for consumption would not purchase wheat in the open market.