Law Commons^™

The Constitution's Forgotten Cover Letter: An Essay On The New Federalism And The Original Understanding, Daniel A. Farber

Daniel A Farber

At the end of the summer of 1787, the Philadelphia Convention issued two documents. One was the Constitution itself. The other document, now almost forgotten even by constitutional historians, was an official letter to Congress, signed by George Washington on behalf of the Convention. Congress responded with a resolution that the Constitution and "letter accompanying the same" be sent to the state legislatures for submission to conventions in each state.

The Washington letter lacks the detail and depth of some other evidence of original intent. Being a cover letter, it was designed only to introduce the accompanying document rather than …

The Roberts Court & The Business Cases, Kenneth W. Starr

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Chopping Down The Rainforest: Finding A Solution To The "Amazon Problem", Eric Andrew Felleman

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

Current economic conditions in the United States have led to a dramatic decrease in state tax revenue. Without these funds, states will be unable to support important public services, and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the public and private sectors are at risk of being cut, as states work to close $103 billion in budget gaps. Accomplishing that will involve overcoming many hurdles, such as the unpopularity of raising taxes during times of economic trouble, but one largely untapped source could provide a significant amount of income to states. States currently lose around $23 billion annually in uncollected use …

Section 6: Business Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 7: Business Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 8: Business Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 5: Business Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 8: Business Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 3: Business And Commerce, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 3: Business, Commerce, And Property, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 7: Business, Commerce, And Property, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 4: Business, Commerce, Property, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Foreword, Louis H. Pollak

Michigan Law Review

Introduction to the Symposium Reflections on United States v. Lopez

The Constitution's Forgotten Cover Letter: An Essay On The New Federalism And The Original Understanding, Daniel A. Farber

Michigan Law Review

At the end of the summer of 1787, the Philadelphia Convention issued two documents. One was the Constitution itself. The other document, now almost forgotten even by constitutional historians, was an official letter to Congress, signed by George Washington on behalf of the Convention. Congress responded with a resolution that the Constitution and "letter accompanying the same" be sent to the state legislatures for submission to conventions in each state.

The Washington letter lacks the detail and depth of some other evidence of original intent. Being a cover letter, it was designed only to introduce the accompanying document rather than …

Enumerated Means And Unlimited Ends, H. Jefferson Powell

Michigan Law Review

United States v. Lopez can be read as a fairly mundane disagreement over the application of a long-settled test. The Government defended the statute under review in the case, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, along familiar lines as a permissible regulation of activity affecting interstate and foreign commerce.

In this essay, I do not address the question whether Lopez was an important decision. My concern instead is with the problem that underlies Lopez's particular issue of the scope of the commerce power: Given our commitment to limited national government, in what way is the national legislature actually limited? …

Commerce!, Deborah Jones Merritt

Michigan Law Review

In this article, I explore the Supreme Court's new definition of "Commerce ... among the several States."9 In Part I, I examine three new principles that Lopez announces and that could significantly rework the Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Part II, however, shows that these principles must be understood in the context of almost a dozen factors narrowing the Supreme Court's Lopez decision. Part II also demonstrates that the lower courts have understood the contextual uniqueness of Lopez and already have distinguished the decision in upholding more than half a dozen broad exercises of congressional authority. Part III then shows that …

"A Government Of Limited And Enumerated Powers": In Defense Of United States V. Lopez, Steven G. Calabresi

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Lopez marks a revolutionary and long overdue revival of the doctrine that the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers. After being "asleep at the constitutional switch" for more than fifty years, the Court's decision to invalidate an Act of Congress on the ground that it exceeded the commerce power must be recognized as an extraordinary event. Even if Lopez produces no progeny and is soon overruled, the opinion has shattered forever the notion that, after fifty years of Commerce Clause precedent, we can never go back to the …

Section 5: Business And Commerce, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

How To Think About The Federal Commerce Power And Incidentally Rewrite United States V. Lopez, Donald H. Regan

Articles

Almost sixty years after the "revolution" of 1937, we still do not have an adequate theory of the commerce power. The Court was right to abandon the theory of dual federalism epitomized by Carter v. Carter Coal Co.;' and it has got the right results in the major cases decided since then. But our post-1937 theory, whether before or after Lopez, is a mess. On the one hand, we have a collection of doctrinal rules that, if we take them seriously, allow Congress to do anything it wants under the commerce power. On the other hand, we continue to pay …

Section 2: Property And Economic Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Second Death Of Federalism, William W. Van Alstyne

Michigan Law Review

In 1976, in National League of Cities v. Usery, the Supreme Court distinguished acts of Congress regulating commercial relations from acts of Congress commanding the terms of state services. Last Term, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Court abandoned the distinction and held that it was principally for Congress to determine federalism questions. In this Comment, Professor Van Alstyne criticizes the Court on both counts.

The Burger Court, The Commerce Clause, And The Problem Of Differential Treatment, Earl M. Maltz

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Abolition Of Self-Help Repossession: The Poor Pay Even More, James J. White

Articles

In this paper I propose to identify possible ways in which a court could uphold the constitutionality of section 9-503 without an explicit rejection of Fuentes v. Shevin. It is my thesis that Fuentes v. Shevin is probably an undesirable outcome, and that the application of the same doctrine to self-help repossession is certainly undesirable and would constitute due process gone berserk. My arguments will not be novel; each has been suggested by the courts that have considered this matter, or by the briefs of the lawyers who have argued these cases. I cannot even claim to have collected the …

Carmack Amendment In The State Courts, Wayland H. Sanford

Michigan Law Review

Prior to the leading case of Adams Express Co. v. Croninger,'- decided January 6th, 1913, there was much diversity in the decisions of the state courts as to the validity of contracts between shippers and carriers limiting the amount of the carrier's liability for injuries to goods shipped. Such limitations were held valid in some states, but invalid in others, and in some were declared invalid by statutes or constitutional provisions.2 State rules were applied to interstate as well as intrastate shipments, it being supposed that Congress had not legislated upon the subject. The CARMACK AmlNDVNT of i9o6s provided that …

Can A Manufacturer Be Compelled To Sell?, Henry M. Bates

Articles

The fight for price maintenance is not yet completely settled, despite, the decisions in Dr. Miles Medical Company v. Parks & Sons Company, 220 U. S. 373, 31 Sup. Ct. 376, 55 L. Ed. 502, and Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell, 229 U. S. 1, 33 Sup. Ct. 616, 58 L. Ed. 1041, which held invalid contracts, whether nominally of agency, or of sale, between manufacturer and wholesaler or jobber whereby the latter in purchasing agreed himself to maintain and to sell only to others who would maintain a schedule of prices established by the manufacturer. But there are more …

The Commodity Clause Of The Hepburn Act, Edwin C. Goddard

Articles

The Supreme Court of the United States has added another to the interesting line of cases construing the so-called "Commodity Clause" of the HEPBURN ACT of 1906. In United States v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Coal Co., decided on June 21, 1915, 35 Sup. Ct. 873, the court reversed the decree of the District Court as reported in 213 Fed. 240, and found the relation and contract between the Railroad Company and the Coal Company to be in violation of the HEPBURN ACT and the SHERMAN ACT.

The Liability Of The Common Carrier As Determined By The Recent Decisions Of The United States Supreme Court, Edwin C. Goddard

Articles

An understanding of the present day liability of the common carrier under conditions as they exist, especially in interstate shipments, is best reached by an historical journey from the early decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States to the end of the year just past.

Limitation As To The Amount Of Liability For Loss Of Goods By Carriers, Edwin C. Goddard

Articles

A carload of automobiles was shipped by express, under an express receipt limiting recovery to $50, unless a greater value was named and a greater carrying charge paid. The shipper knew of this stipulation, and deliberately chose the restricted liability so as to secure the lower rate. On a suit for loss of the automobiles, recovery was limited to $50. Geo. N. Pierce Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 189 Fed. 561, commented on in 10 MICH. L. REB. 317. The United States Supreme Court has just affirmed this decision, 35 Sup. Ct. 351.

What Is Interstate Commerce?, Horace Lafayette Wilgus

Articles

In the case of International Text-book Company v. Pigg, Advance Sheets May 1, 1910 (30 Sup. Ct. 481) the Supreme Court of the United States, decided April 4, 1910, that a "corporation engaged in imparting instruction by correspondence, whose business involves the solicitation of students in other states by local agents, who are to collect and forward to the home office the tuition fees, and the systematic intercourse between the corporation and its scholars and agents, wherever situated, and the transportation of the needful books, apparatus, and papers," is engaged in interstate commerce, and a state statute which makes the …

State Regulations Affecting Interstate Commerce, Horace Lafayette Wilgus

Articles

The line between regulations of intrastate and interstate commerce is difficult to draw and hard to maintain. This is well illustrated in the recent case of St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Arkansas, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States April 4, 1910, Advance Sheets, May I, 1910, p. 476, 30 Sup.Ct. 476.