Constitutional Law Case Study

The act also created the National Labor Relations Board (NLBR) which monitors the collective bargaining process. It’s made up of five members, who run offices all over the United States.

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, and Clause 3. The Clause states that the United States Congress shall power, “To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The Commerce Clause represents one of the most fundamental powers delegated to Congress. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Lopez and reversed his conviction, holding that, “Section 922, in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause” (Source 1.)

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered that the ESDC’s determination be annulled. The ESDC then appealed the Supreme Court of New York’s decision to New York’s highest court.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also known as the Wagner Act, was enacted in Congress in 1935 and became one of the most important legacies of the New Deal. Prior to the passage of the NLRA, employers had been free to spy on, interrogate, discipline, discharge, and blacklist union members. Reversing years of federal opposition, the statute guaranteed the right of employees to organize labor unions, to engage in collective bargaining, and to take part in strikes. The act also created a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to arbitrate deadlocked labor-management disputes, guarantee democratic union elections, and penalize unfair labor practices by employers. The law applied to all employees involved in the interstate

This law forced the railroads to report to the federal government before making important decisions like how much to charge customers. The railroad companies were outraged and used the defense that their monopolies were almost automatically formed, but there was nothing they could do since the law was federal. (Moritz 19-24, 28)

favor. The case had yet again been appealed, and this time the Supreme Court is

1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

The Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8 states that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce itself as well as the power to regulate local commerce if that local commerce has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. When Congress regulates an intrastate activity, there is a test that is used by the Supreme Court that determines whether Congress actually has the right to regulate this intrastate activity with some sort of economic effect. The Commerce Clause test is one that also goes on to explain that it is not just about one instance where if there is a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, but as a whole having a substantial economic effect. Also, if the activity does deal with interstate commerce that has an economic effect, then Congress has the ability to regulate wages and any other instance of activity which includes all workers even if the workers do not produce the commerce. Section 1001 of the PSA states Congress’ intention to “establish a nationwide program to protect the public from the adverse effects of tainted and contaminated pharmaceutical products.” Section 5001 of the PSA establishes licensing and pharmaceutical production education requirements for “individuals employed by any pharmaceutical producer” and sets maximum hours such individuals can work. One could then argue that the Supreme Court is allowed to say that Section 5001 of the PSA is within Congress’ power to set maximum hours and make people

NLRA was considered to be the law that affected the relationship among the federal government and private enterprise; this measure considerably increased the government’s powers to arbitrate in labor relations. Prior to this law, employers had the emancipation to chastise, spy on, question for no reason and fire union members. Work stoppages commenced in the mid 1930’s (Gould, 1986), which included striking by factory and industrial occupational workers. By the time the strikes came to a halt, America had a more conservative Congress. This Congress led to balance the power between employers and unions. While the Wagner Act addressed only unfair labor practices by employers, it was added to the enactment of

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

In 1995, a case went to the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionalism of an act passed by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause. The respondent, Alfonso Lopez, Jr. had appealed his case up from his district court in San Antonio all the way to the Supreme Court. The process took almost three whole years. Lopez had been charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 that was passed by Congress through the Commerce Clause. Lopez’s lawyer argued that the Congress did not have any constitutional power through its Commerce Clause to pass the Gun-Free Schools Zones Act in 1990. The case was viewed and decided by nine Supreme Court justices. In the Supreme Court case, United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court justices held that Congress’s control over and through the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional. Their votes were 5 to 4. This was the first Supreme Court decision in over half a decade to limit the power of Congress.

Before I can appropriately discuss the opinion given by the US Supreme Court Justices; I feel that at first I must explain the background of what happened and the question that was brought before the justices of the US Supreme Court and the facts of the case. During this paper I will try to give some background information as well as the various opinions related to this issue. I will attempt to analyze and discuss the overall final outcome as issued by the courts in 1995.

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) started in July 1935 to protect the rights of employees, rather, they be union or nor-union employees (Pozgar, 2012). The employees are protected under the Act or may employ in bubble-like, rigorous goings-on in situations other than the customary union organizations and cooperative bargaining. The National Labor Relations Board regulates the employers from interfering with the rights of the employees to implement or organize and join with a groups that offers assists with collective bargaining purposes like organization union or joining one (Pozgar, 2012). The employer may not restrain, coerce or stop employees