Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Constitutional Law -The Railroad Retirement Act - Interstate Commerce - Due Process
Constitutional Law -The Railroad Retirement Act - Interstate Commerce - Due Process
Michigan Law Review
Serious obstacles were placed in the path of social legislation by the Supreme Court's decision holding the Railroad Retirement Act unconstitutional.1 To what extent the narrow view taken of the permissible field of regulation of interstate commerce will interfere with other legislation based on the commerce power remains to be seen. The majority of the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Roberts, found the Act objectionable both as violating the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and as not being a regulation of commerce under the commerce clause. Before taking up these two aspects of the case, …
Constitutional Law - Agricultural Adjustment Act - Validity Of Milk Licenses Under Section 8 (3)
Constitutional Law - Agricultural Adjustment Act - Validity Of Milk Licenses Under Section 8 (3)
Michigan Law Review
Pursuant to the authorization of Section 8 (3) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Secretary of Agriculture issued a blanket license in the Baltimore Sales Area whereby the distributors of fluid milk or its products in the current of interstate or foreign commerce were subjected to detailed regulation of production and purchase and resale prices. The plaintiff dairy company, handling milk produced and consumed exclusively within the state, sought an in junction against the enforcement of the license. Held, in granting a final decree, that the plaintiff's activities were not in the current of and that they did not …
Constitutional Law - Eminent Domain - Power Of Federal Government To Condemn Land For Slum Clearance Project
Michigan Law Review
In proceedings by the United States government to condemn certain lands in the city of Louisville for the purpose of a slum clearance and low cost housing project, several property owners demurred to the condemnation petitions as being beyond the constitutional powers of the federal government. Although the United States contended that the property was being taken for a public use, in the sense of general public advantage, and that the project was a valid expenditure of public funds for the general welfare, it was held that this condemnation was not within the power of the federal government. United States …