amendment10

Lindsay is doing Plessy v. Ferguson

1.Garrett Abbey 2.printz v. united states 3.Petitioners Jay Printz and Richard Mack respectively filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions. They objected to the use of congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law. 4.In each case, the District Court held that the provision requiring CLEOs to perform background checks was unconstitutional, but concluded that that provision was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the Brady Act's interim provisions to be unconstitutional. 5. The majority of five justices rule that the interim provisions of the Brady Bill are unconstitutional. In his opinion, [|Justice Scalia] states that, although there is no constitutional text precisely responding to the challenge, an answer can be found “in historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court.”

//1. Samantha Mornhineway// 2.**//Wickard v. Filburn//** (1942), 3.limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production. The stated purpose of the act was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the amount of wheat produced. 4. The final decision interpreting the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce... among the several States." 5. It impact the country because if wheat was to much we couldn't buy it

1.Jack Cubberly 2.New york vs united States (1992) 3.New York and 31 other states were looking for a place to put there Radioactive Waste. 4.The final disision is that there would be some dumps made and if you go to a dump out of the state that you live in you will be a surcharge to dump your garbage. 5.The fianal impacked was that now there were now more places to dump your wast. Go GIANTS! In the case New york V the United states the city needed more places to dispose of their Radioactive Waste. The city of New York argued that th ere was'nt enough places to put the waist after it has been used. This has been an argumen in many states but new york is one of the first to argue this problem. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act was an attempt to imbue a negotiated agreement among the States with federal incentives for compliance. The problem of what to do with radioactive waste was a is a natonal issue complicated by the political reluctance for states to deal with the problem individually. New York was a willing participant in the compromise, but after the Act was passed, the state attempted to renege.

Maggie D. is doing HUDSON vs. MICHIGAN

1.David C. 2.Calder v. Bull (1798) 3.Bull's will violated a new law posted soon after he made his will. He argued that it was an ex post facto law. 4.The desision was made in favor of Bull, that a state posting an ex post facto law cannot be made by the state. 5.Like I mentioned before, no state can post an ex post facto law.

1. Hiba Rahman 2. McCulloch vs. Maryland 1819 3. Maryland had attempted to put tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable, the U.S. Bank was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law is generally recognized as specifically targeting the U.S. Bank. The Court invoked the necasarry and proper clause, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers as long as those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers. 4. The Supreme Court's desicion was that Congress do, and did, have the power to charter the bank, so Maryland was innocent. 5. The impact was that the country is allowed to charter buildings that aren't chartered yet. An example was of the bank in the McCulloch vs. Maryland case.

1. Ali Surdoval 2. __Worcester v. Georgia__ 1832 3. Worcester was arrested for living within the boudaries of the Cherokee Nation. He did not have a license for the missionary work he was doing. The Georgia Act he was arrested under "was to prevent the exercise of assumed powers by people under the authority of the Cherokee Indians." Worcester felt that this act was unconstitutional. Does Georgia have the right to control the intercourse between itsd citizens and the Cherokee Nation? 4. The court agreed with Worcester that the act was unconstitutional and that the act interfered with the government's authority. Worcester was arrested under an act that violated the Constitution. 5. This act the independence of the Cherokee and other Indian nations. The intercourse between the Cherokee Nation and the United States is controlled by our government.

1. Chrissy Scaglione 2. Hammer vs.Dagenhart ( Hammer, U.S. attorney, Dagenhart, ET AL.) 3. Congress had passed a bill in 1916, that prohibited the transportation in interstate commerce of goods made at a factory, where children under the age of fourteen, or between fourteen and sixteen worked, eight hours a day, six days a week. A father decided to file a suit for his own behalf and for his two sons, who were fourteen, and between the age of fourteen and sixteen. They worked in a cotton mill. 4. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that Congress does NOT have the right to regulate commerce of goods manufactured by children. They also said that the manufacturing of cotton did NOT constitute interstate commerce. 5. This case was later overruled by a series of cases in the United States vs. Darby Lumber. In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with Justice Holmes' idea, that Congress does have the right to regulate commerce, and that no matter what the product was, sold in a different state, that it was too interstate commerce. Now, Americans should know that children under the age of fourteen may not be able to manufacture goods that will be considered interstate commerce.

1. Kristina Genovese 2. [|**United States v. Butler**] 1936 3. The U.S. congress forced a tax on the processing agricultural commoditieswhere funds would be redistributed to farmers who promised to reduce their production of the same agricultural commodities. The issue was whether the U.S. congress exceeded its power to tax and spend in order to provide for the general welfare. 4. The court found the act unconstitutional because it attempted to control agricultural production in an area reserved to the states. 5. This will help to protect the country from people trying to control productions all over the country.

Maria is doing [|Watters, Linda (Commissioner, Michigan Office of Insurance & Financial Services) v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al.] 11-29-06 > > CHRISTIAN RUIZ IS DOIN A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States MINE!!!!! > 1. Niko Salvatoriello > 2. Gibbonns vs. Ogden (1824) > 3. A New York state law gave two individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. Laws like this one were duplicated elsewhere which led to friction as some states would require foreign boats to pay substantial fees for navigation privileges. In this case a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey challenged the monopoly, the exclusive possession or control of something, that New York had granted, which forced him to obtain a special operating permit from the state to navigate on its waters. Did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to Congress? > 4. The Court found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. > 5. It means that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised only by the Congress. > > Haley Chute is doing Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia
 * 1) Maria Nocerino.
 * 2) Watters, Linda vs. Wachovia Bank 11-29-06.
 * 3) The bank is sueing Linda for going agenst the state laws.
 * 4) The decision came out to be that Linda won.
 * 5) This concluded that state law usually must govern the activities of both national and state banks for the dual banking system to operate effectively.