Con Final
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Seton Hall University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3210
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by EarlHerring2752
Fitzgerald 1
Fitzgerald, Taiyonna
Professor Pallitto
Constitutional Law
15 December 2023
Constitutional Law Final
ESSAY QUESTION:
In our democracy, a common fear of those well-versed in politics is “super-legislature”. Excessive government interference has proven time and time again to disrupt how we operate as a society on a local level. In state matters, states don’t want the courts using their jurisdiction to scrutinize their legislatures on their local matters. In the early stages of substantive due process, many states found it distasteful because of the lack of control they would have in establishing certain legislatures. There are several cases in which the states overstep their authority to legislate based on the constitutionality of the laws they wish to enforce and instill. For example, in Lochner v. New York (1905), New York produced a Bakeshop Act that prohibited the number of hours per day and week that could be worked. Lochner appealed against his second fine for allowing his employees to exceed these set numbers. Upon appeal, the courts found that the Act was unconstitutional in that it violated the due process clause, breached freedom of contract, and exceeded the state's reach. In Fletcher v. Peck (1810), the state produced a land grant, which granted John Peck land. Peck then sold the land to Robert Fletcher. When the states voided the original grant with the legislature and attempted to retrieve the land from Fletcher, Fletcher argued that Peck never had proper title to sell, and Peck argued that the states had no right to go
Fitzgerald 2
back on their grant. The courts agreed with Peck and decided that it was an unconstitutional breach of contract for the states to deny Peck proper claim to the land. In these cases, the courts needed to step in to ensure constitutionality at a time when states were using their power to continue to oppress people and suppress their rights. In modern times, I think it is essential that the courts continue to intervene and preserve the Constitution, especially in a time of living constitutionalism. For example, there are states like Florida attempting to eliminate essential elements of learning from the public schooling curriculum. It is important to understand that while we are progressing to a deformed version of equality, there are still states that wish to suppress individuals economically, socially, and physically. In understanding issues of poverty, discrimination, and inequity in healthcare for centuries, there is no reason for someone to not be able to afford healthcare in this century. The point is, that substantive due process is necessary because states who are governed by individuals still attempting to implement laws on discrimination, suppression, and oppression, are not allowed to do so. While this is very opinionated, I feel as though we are slipping into an age of modern Jim Crow and the enforcement of the rights laid out in our Constitutional text and governed by our High Courts will prevent this from becoming the new norm.
SHORT ANSWERS: A.
Trace the rise and fall of the contracts clause from Fletcher v. Peck to Charles River Bridge and say why you think it faded in importance.
a.
In Fletcher v. Peck, land grants were distributed to certain companies with the impression the land would be owned by the individuals with ownership of those
Fitzgerald 3
companies. When John Peck sold his land to Robert Fletcher and the state produced legislation repealing the original grant the Courts ruled that the state’s legislation was unconstitutional in that it violated the Contract Clause. In Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, the state had a contract to complete the Charles River Bridge, while they met these expectations, the state simultaneously began the construction of a competing bridge, the Warren Bridge. The courts ruled that it
was constitutional because the construction of the Warren Bridge never violated the contract for the Charles River Bridge. I don’t think that the deterioration of the
importance of the commerce clause can be determined based on these two cases. These cases are unrelated in the types of contracts and the ruling. If anything, I think these cases show how the respect of contracts has been deteriorating. In modern times, we have found a way to dishonor contracts without a technical violation. B.
Why did Congress use the commerce power to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and why did the Court’s decision in Heart of Atlanta Motel
uphold that law?
a.
The Heart of Atlanta Hotel denies an African American couple a room. Congress used commerce power to uphold this right expressed in the Civil Rights Act because motels are used to house those from different locations, specifically states. It is interstate commerce, which falls in the realm of their jurisdiction to regulate. This is a clear commerce clause case. C.
Was the individual mandate a proper use of commerce power in the ACA?
a.
No, the individual responsibility provision of the Affordable Care Act was not in the realm of the commerce power granted to Congress. This is not a case of
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Fitzgerald 4
interstate commerce and this being said, it is not in their realm to govern, and the installation of this individual mandate is improper and a violation of the rights of the insurance companies’ right to profit.