Filled Milk Act Case Study

A controversy arose between Ogden, who had obtained the license from Fulton and Livingston, and Gibbons, who had obtained his license through the United States government. Ogden petitioned the New York Court to “enjoin” Gibbons, his formal partner, from continuing with this business in that state. The Court favored Ogden and granted the injunction and Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the right for Congress to have vast powers. According to the Supreme Court, Congress can regulate who can enter into a monopoly and this case made a distinction between interstate and intrastate within a state. Although the federal government has not been specifically delegated the power to regulate commerce within a certain state that does not mean that the federal government cannot regulate a states commerce. When the Commerce Clause has a broad interpretation, intrastate regulations are often included. Commerce is more than just buying or selling; it is intercoursing, which according to this case does include such stipulations as navigation. Interpreting commerce in a broad sense has thus established what is known as a Federal police power. Police powers refer to or identify the inherent authority of the state government to regulate individually liberty, freedom for health and welfare and safety. The Federal government does not have police power, but it can be seen as evidence in this case how the Federal

The Supreme Court has scrutinized the use of the commerce power with a skeptical eye

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

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

The final case regarding this conflict between the right of Congress to regulate versus the personal rights of an individual is Wickard v. Filburn. This case involves a farmer who grew wheat in the state of Ohio. Mr. Filburn was not a wheat farmer by trade; he grew the wheat as a small side business in addition to primarily using the wheat he grew for his family and his livestock. One of the New Deal pieces of legislation had established quotas for the maximum amount of wheat that individual farmers could grow as a way to control supply of wheat and therefore wheat prices (Wickard, 5). The Supreme court ruled that Filburn had violated the law by exceeding his allotment of wheat production, even though he did not intend to sell much, if any of his wheat because “it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market (Wickard, 5). Basically, because Filburn would have had to buy his wheat had he not grown it, by growing his own wheat he infringed upon the law regulating the price of wheat by not buying wheat. His absence from the wheat market was reason enough to declare him in violation of the regulatory statute put forth in the legislation. It mattered not what the purpose of the excess wheat he grew was, as it affected

In the 1803 court case of Marbury v. Madison, questions of jurisdictional authority were addressed. At the end of John Adam’s term, William

During the Second Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, there was a great deal of scientific advancements that connected the urban cities of America with the rural countryside. One of the most influential and popular innovations was the railroads. This new system of transportation allowed for quick delivery of many commodities such as milk from the countryside. With greater access to milk came a plethora of unforeseen consequences on both the economy of the cities and the health of the people who lived in these cities. As more people gained access to milk through railroads, they were also introduced to diseases such as tuberculosis, which infected the milk supply, leading to the deaths of many newborns and giving urban cities a new incentive

The facts of this case are that Congress has enacted the Emergency Bubblegum Price Control Act. Under it, the Price Administrator was given the authority to “establish such maximum price or prices that in his judgment will be generally fair and equitable and will effectuate the purposes of the act,” at any time when, in the Price Administrator’s judgment, bubblegum prices rise or threatened to rise to an extent or in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. The issue at hand is whether the Act articulates an “intelligible principle” sufficient to constitute a valid delegation of power.

According to above laws, Mad-About-Milk organizers have a legitimate argument regarding the requirements for selling milk produced out-of-state to the state of California. Furthermore, requiring out-of-state producers who want to sell milk in California must meet the California fluid milk standards violate the interstate commerce act. It is the federal regulation of business to prevent any unfair business practices among its industry. California fluid milk standards create state trade barriers which interfere with commerce between states. Even though, California has the right to set their own standard, but they cannot ban federal standard milk from entering the state. Allowing out-of-state milk producers to sell their product in California

The central point on deciding on if a rule is part of the commerce clause is to see whether it regulates an act in an existing commercial activity. In this case the key point of contention, “Individual Mandate”, does not control a commercial activity that already exists, on the contrary “it compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product.” The power of commerce is not something used to force individual behaviors. In this case “Individual Mandate” is simply forcing individuals to enter to commerce because they have opted to refrain from it. Therefore commerce clause should be used by the congress when it is regulates existing commercial activity and when there is a connection between

Mad-About-Milk case illustrates challenges to interpretation of The Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause grants the federal government power to regulate commerce between states. In this case the issue is whether California’s milk regulations pose a restriction on interstate trade. In this case California is not violating the Commerce Clause because its milk regulation applies equally to companies within the state and with plants outside the state. The requirement for fortified milk sold within the state is not isolated and applies uniformly for any company

In 1982 a family owned company (Anderson Erickson dairy) were the 1st once to put the side panels on a milk carton for missing children. This was never been done, therefore the society was shocked as if it was Black Tuesday of 1929, because they never faced such a complication before. This ides was an inspiration for the society to work together and fathom the tragedy that happened. Which also force the police to deploy new tactics in a desperate attempt to find the missing children. Many other companies like Coco-cola started printing guile flyers with safety tips to teach children, a toy store chain named Kaybee ran TV commercials to urge prevention through education. Pizza boxes, utility bills and grocery bags also encrypted this. Other dairy companies throughout the country also started sailing their milk cartons with missing children pictures on them, the awareness was spreading like a catalysed chemical reaction. “These images on the milk cartons became iconic, a kind of cultural shorthand for missing children” said reporter Andy Brawn. Most of these dairy companies were working in collaboration with the police department of the city. More than 6 million cartons were flooded with images and details of missing children from around the country. This

During the Cold War, the Soviets were trying to spread communism throughout Europe and Asia by exalting its achievements, and undermining democracy. Part of their approach was by launching ‘Hate-America’ propaganda. “As the Cold War intensified, the Truman administration launched an aggressive “Campaign of Truth” […] to counter the Soviet Union propaganda machine (Ubah, 2012).” The Campaign of Truth was created to help convince the world that the United States has “no purpose of going to war, except in the defense of freedom. (Vaccaro, 1950)” Truman encouraged the media to show the world that the United States was ‘wholly dedicated to the cause of peace (Vaccaro,

The enactment of the Emergency Bubblegum Price Control Act represents a delegation of bubblegum price-setting power to the Price Administrator. Under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, the legislative powers of the federal government are vested in the U.S. Congress, however, the courts have recognized the congressional authority to obtain assistance from other branches of the government, providing that the legislature "lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such rates is directed to conform". Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'Ns, 531 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2001), Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748 (U.S. 1996), citing Chief Justice Taft in J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S.

persons. Texas requires its health department to provide guidelines regarding milk banks, and also requires health insurers to provide breastfeeding services to new mothers who are discharged early after delivery. Florida has several statutes encouraging breastfeeding information in various settings. State laws pertaining to breastfeeding are varied in their nature and scope. Leaders can provide mothers with relevant laws and related information, but should refrain from interpreting laws or offering legal advice.