Title: 07-01pp.216
1. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court _______.
2. Which of the following constitutional doctrines speaks directly to a situation in which the
federal government regulates an aspect of intrastate commerce that is so intertwined with
interstate commerce that a failure to regulate it would injure interstate commerce?
3. In United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895) the Supreme Court held that the federal
government could not regulate the sugar -refining industry because the refining process was an
intrastate activity that had no direct effect on interstate commerce.
4. In Swift & Company v. United States (1905) and Stafford v. Wallace (1922) the Supreme
Court ruled that federal efforts to regulate cattle stockyards as well as stockyard dealers and
commission men were valid under _______.
5. The “Four Horsemen” (Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler) were
known for their _______.
6. Which of the following is not like the others in terms of doctrinal outcome?
7. In A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) the justices held that _______.
A. although federal regulation of the Schechters’ poultry business was constitutionally
permissible, the federal poultry codes were the product of an unconstitutional delegation of
power to the executive branch
8. In Champion v. Ames (1903;) lottery case), the Supreme Court held that _______.
9. Who provided the crucial vote known as the “switch in time”?
10. Public opinion concerning the Court-packing plan _______.
11. Darby and Wickard created the era where the Court _______.
12. Morrison, Lopez, and Jones all indicate _______.
13. In National League of Cities v. Usery (1976) the Court considered the constitutionality of the
1974 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act that extended the Act’s minimum wage and
maximum hours provisions to the states and their political subdivisions. The Court held that
Congress exceeded its authority in attempting to regulate the wages and hours of state and local
government employees.
14. Intrastate commerce is commerce that takes place _______.
15. The “switch in time that saved nine” refers to what? What switched? What was saved?
16. In United States v. Lopez (1995) the Supreme Court held that the Gun-Free School Zones
Act was an unconstitutional use of the federal power to regulate commerce. Four justices
dissented in an opinion written by Justice Breyer. What was the basis of the argument presented
by the minority?
17. In March 1937 President Franklin Roosevelt proposed legislation to reform the federal
judiciary. In that proposed statute, what specific changes did Roosevelt recommend for the U.S.
Supreme Court?
18. Under the authority of what provision of the Constitution did Congress pass the Civil Rights
Act of 1964?
19. What was meant by the term “dormant commerce clause” (sometimes called the “negative
commerce clause”)?
20. What is meant by the term “police power”?
21. Justice Stevens argues that the circumstances in Raich are different from those in Lopez or
Morrison. What his rationale for this argument? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
22. What constitutional provision did Chief Justice Roberts use to justify the constitutionality of
the Affordable Care Act? Why did he argue that this law could not be upheld under the power to
regulate interstate commerce?
23. What are the key points in Gibbons v. Ogden that led to an expansive reading of the
Commerce Clause?
24. Explain what is meant by the term “stream of commerce” and how the Court justified this
interpretation of commerce during the nineteenth 19th century.
25. The Supreme Court has gone through a long and cyclical relationship concerning the federal
government’s use of the Commerce Clause. In other words, at some points in history the federal
government has been granted wide discretion in its use of the commerce power, while at others it
has been “reined in” by the Court. Using the major cases that we have discussed, explain how the
federal government’s power to control commerce has changed from Gibbons v. Ogden through
Heart of Atlanta Motel. Be sure to include a discussion of the different ways the Court has
defined “commerce.” Finally, in light of the most recent Commerce Clause cases we have read,
what do you think is the current state of Commerce Clause powers? Why?
26. Congress has passed a law that prohibits shipment across state lines of lager, licorice, and
lawn furniture produced by left-handed Americans of Lithuanian descent. Congress feels that
employers in these particular industries had historically discriminated against this subgroup of
the population. Members believe that they could pass such legislation based on a power that
could be implied from various enumerated powers (e.g., the powers to lay and collect taxes, to
borrow money, and to regulate commerce among the several states).
The state of Missouri disagrees, arguing that such legislation may be appropriate to remedy
discrimination against federal employees, but it does not pertain to the states. In its view, this is
not an issue involving interstate commerce but rather solely an attempt by the government to
interfere with intrastate commerce—a thinly veiled attempt by Congress to impose its own moral
views on the state.
How would Chief Justice Marshall decide this case? Whose argument would he support? How
might his view on this case differ from that of Chief Justice Taney? How would Taney decide
the case? The question presented here is not asking whether the law is constitutional per se;
rather, it is requesting that you evaluate and analyze the approaches Marshall and Taney would
take in their opinions. If you were a justice on the Court, whose approach would you support?
Marshall’s? Taney’s? Neither justice’s? Again, justify your response with reference to specific
Court cases.
27. Assume for purposes of this question that the federal government has adopted the Organic
Foods Act to regulate the production and distribution of organic goods. While this act is
controversial in many aspects, one section in particular has received national attention.
According to Section 193, “Congress, in conjunction with the FDA and the Department of
Agriculture, will set standards for all organic foods served in the nation’s elementary, middle,
and secondary schools.” The states, however, in conjunction with local school boards, are
directed “to certify that any agricultural commodity, regardless of its point of origin, meets two
requirements. First, the producer or distributor must submit documentation of the methods used
to produce it. Second, samples of the commodity must pass certain tests for the presence of
chemicals, synthetic hormones, genetic alterations, and other nonorganic substances.” The states
and school districts are directed to provide testing services, which are often quite expensive.
Minnesota School District No. 720 challenges the law, arguing that it is up to the states and local
school districts to regulate the food served in their own states. The district files suit, alleging that
the regulations violate the “dormant” Commerce Clause. As a justice on the Supreme Court, how
would you rule in this case?