trias politica principle-SUPREME COURT AND SEPARATION OF POWERS

That flirt was " activistic," but by and large and with some exceptions, in favor of restraining states rights.

An equilibrium between national and state power was temporarily achieved by a series of decisions in the early 1900s. The Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames), (188 U.S. 321 (1903)) clearly open the power of relative under the Commerce Clause to splay from interstate highway highway highway commerce commodities (in that case lottery tickets) deemed harmful by Congress. In the Shreveport Case (Houston, East & West Texas Ry. v. United States), (234 U.S. 341 (1914)), the Court upheld the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate interstate railroad rates. The rationale for that decision was two-fold: (1) such rates had a direct effect on interstate commerce; (2) Congress has the power, said Justice Hughes, to establish "uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminatory state legislation." In Hammer v. Dagenhart, (247 U.S. 251 (1918)), the Court quash federal child labor legislation which made it wrong to transport in interstate commerce products manufactured lawlessly by child labor. The Court in that case was "activist" against encroachments of federal power into matters which the Court said were local, such as manufacturing. Its decision was based in part on the modesty to the states of powers not expressly granted to Congress under the tenth Amendment, Amendment X (1791).

By the 1930s, the nation was faced with a coun

The public accommodation provisions of the well-bred Rights Act of 1964 made illegal acts of discrimination based on race by entities providing such facilities in interstate commerce. In Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U.S., (379 U.S.

241 (1964)), the Court held that a motel near an interstate highway was engaged in interstate commerce and was consequently subject to, and properly put together guilty of, violating that Act. It made a finding that such acts constituted a burden on interstate commerce. In Katzenbach v. McClung, (379 U.S. 294 (1964)), it upheld the conviction of a restaurant possessor who had refused service to blacks, even though the restaurant in question, Ollie's Barbecue, was placed 11 miles from an interstate highway and no discrimination against interstate perishers had been proven. That decision could have been based exclusively on the impact protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but the Court put together that such discrimination placed a burden on interstate commerce because such acts by one restauranteur, who was found to be representative of all, placed a burden on interstate commerce because, inter alia, it discouraged interstate travel by blacks. This represented a highly tenuous interpretation, a subjective one if you will, of the Commerce Clause.

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

Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)

Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!