Commerce Power

1
(No Transcript)
2

• Commerce Power
• Champion v. Ames (1903)
• Shreveport Rate Case (1914)
• Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
• Stafford v. Wallace (1922)
• NLRB v. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)
• Edwards v. California (1941)
• Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
• Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)
• Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)
• City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)
• Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981)

• International Relations
• Missouri v. Holland (1920)
• U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)
• U.S. v. Belmont (1937)
• Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
• Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

3
The Burger Court

• 1969-1986

4
Membership, 1969 1986

• Burger (1969) R-MN
• Black (1937) D-AL
• Douglas (1939) D-WA
• Harlan (1955) R-NY
• Brennan (1956) D-NJ
• Stewart (1958) R-OH
• White (1962) D-CO
• Fortas (1965) D-TN
• Marshall (1967) D-NY

• Burger (1969) R-MN
• Powell (1972) R-VA
• Stevens (1976) R-IL
• Rehnquist (1972) R-AZ
• Brennan (1956) D-NJ
• OConnor (1982) R-AZ
• White (1962) D-CO Blackmun (1970) R-MN
• Marshall (1967) D-NY

5
Generalizations

• A preference for government over the individual?
• A preference for executive over legislative
  power?
• An enhanced concern for property rights?
• A diminished concern for political rights?

6
14th Amendment, 1 1868

• All persons born or naturalized in the United
  States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
  are citizens of the United States and of the
  State wherein they reside. No state shall make or
  enforce any law which shall abridge the
  privileges or immunities of citizens of the
  United States nor shall any State deprive any
  person of life, liberty, or property, without due
  process of law nor deny to any person within its
  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

7
Three Tiers of Equal Protection

• Rational Basis applicable to most governmental
  classification, including economic. The burden
  of proof is on the challenging party to
  demonstrate that the government could have no
  rational basis for its discriminationthat it is
  arbitrary, capricious, and patently
  discriminatory.
• Strict Scrutiny applicable to suspect
  classifications, like race. See Korematsu. The
  burden of proof is on the government to
  demonstrate that its regulation is essential to a
  compelling governmental interest. As a practical
  matter, the burden is never met. Scalia has said
  the only circumstances he could imagine would be
  a race riot in a prison, where government might
  find it necessary on a temporary basis to
  separate inmates by race.
• Intermediate Scrutiny applicable to
  semi-suspect classifications, like sex. Here the
  burden of proof is on the government to
  demonstrate that its regulation is substantially
  related to an important governmental interest,
  but separate, but equal is permissible.

8
The Rehnquist Court

• 1986-present

9
Membership, 1986 present

• Burger (1969) R-MN
• Powell (1972) R-VA
• Stevens (1976) R-IL
• Rehnquist (1972) R-AZ
• Brennan (1956) D-NJ
• OConnor (1982) R-AZ
• White (1962) D-CO
• Blackmun (1970) R-MN
• Marshall (1967) D-NY

• Rehnquist (1969/86) R-AZ
• Kennedy (1988) R-CA
• Stevens (1976) R-IL
• Scalia (1986) R-DC
• Souter (1990) R-NH
• OConnor (1982) R-AZ
• Ginsburg (1993) D-DC
• Breyer (1994) D-MA
• Thomas (1992) R-MO

10
Comparative Liberalism, 1986-1994
11
Generalizations

• A preference for government over the individual?
• A preference for executive over legislative
  power?
• An enhanced concern for property rights?
• A diminished concern for political rights?