Got Juice Case

They share the same principles with each other. State and local governments can’t create or enforce laws that contradict the Constitution. The Constitution requires “equal protection under the law” for the state and local governments. However, the state and local governments have their differences too. The state has more laws and “ground” to cover than the local governments do. “Each state has its own written constitution, and these documents are often far more elaborate than their federal counterpart. The Alabama Constitution, for example, contains 310,296 words — more than 40 times as many as the U.S. Constitution” (The White House). The local government just deals with the county and their jurisdiction in that state. The state government is more superior over the local government. “A local government must be granted power by the state” (The White House). When it comes to the state and local governments, the state has more power than the local government

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Tenth Amendment, as it was originally written does not specify or restrict the spectrum of powers which are entitled to the federal government, the state government, and or the people. Since this amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not provide an accurate measure of the powers granted to each group, it is a very open concept and its extent can be given an infinite number of interpretations. The lack of specific distinction between the powers can cause altercations regarding the rights and authority that the state and the national government have over certain issues. To

States have always been sensitive about the amount of power they have; the federal government has always had to step carefully around the demands of the states. This has been true since the beginning of the United States. But both believe that they should have the most power when it comes to certain things. Individual states have different values and as such tend to implement different laws about certain topics; such states want their state laws to reflect these individual values instead of a blanket law from the federal government. States should have less power compared to the federal government when implementing laws dealing with topics such as the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion.

Instead of the federal law, states took it into their own hand to make their own. It may seem comedic but some states made their own sort of “wacky” laws. Some of the laws are countless and it seems as if states took advantage of the Tenth amendment to just create their own regulations. In Alabama it is illegal to drive while blindfolded, and in Florida it is Illegal to sell your children, and in Arkansa it is prohibited to pronounce “Arkansas’’ incorrectly. Most of

States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which

State law and regulations tend to be more precise and detailed. They take what federal has set in place and expand on it.

The federal government and the states deal with the law enforcement. The Bill of Rights applies to the national government, not to the states. Each state had their own Bill of Rights that were very similar to the federal government bill of

The 10th amendment of the United States constitution should have contained specific powers that are within the states. However, there is not an explicit example of the powers that given to the states. Whether the powers were changed, eliminated, or remained the same throughout the years, there should be at least some form of documentation as to what the states are allowed to do and with or without permission from the federal government. These powers of the states are actually the rights of the states that are supposed to be protected by the constitution.

It was not until after the Civil War that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were enacted and began protecting individuals against the states. The Fourteenth Amendment has been the principal means by which this protection has been accomplished. It reads, in part, “No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Supreme Court had interpreted this guarantee of liberty to embrace the fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights, meaning that the state governments must observe and protect them to the same extent as the federal government this is also known called incorporation. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are said to be incorporated against the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There has been an ongoing debate on the Supreme Court about the extent of incorporation, and whether the entire Bill of Rights, or only some of it’s guarantees, should be incorporated against the states.

From a personal perspective, I agree with the ruling of the law to be unconstitutional as well. Although the recent ruling of the law does not cause a concerted action for the fixation of gasoline prices, it still does indirectly impose a form of price fixation. The prices are not fixed but it still forces gasoline retailers to set their prices according to Legislation, which otherwise would be illegal. This type of parallel pricing which is imposed if the law were to stay in place is exactly what the Sherman Act prohibits. Moreover, the main arguments to the law being in place are basically that smaller independent gas station owners will be driven out of business by the larger competitor’s ability to lower their prices. Rarely, however, does it occur that

In Emerson's claim that the Commerce Clause was violated, he argued that the Act did not regulate commercial activity, and was therefore an unconstitutional use of congressional power. In claiming this, Emerson looked to the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Lopez, however, the District Court dismissed this claim, citing a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which examined the validity of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(8) under a Commerce Clause challenge, in which it held that the Act was constitutional (United 3). Because of this ruling (in United States v. Pierson), the District Court

Furthermore, in Standard Oil Co., the Supreme Court stated that “The term "monopoly,"… as used in the Sherman Act was intended to cover such monopolies or attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in this country; those which were defined as illegal at common law by the States, when applied to intrastate commerce.” The Supreme Court went on to further state that “the principles of the common law applied to interstate as well as to intrastate commerce.”

The Act struck down portions of Indiana’s controversial vaping law by demanding specific provisions required for out of state manufacturers in Indiana. The law revolved around a company’s security, cleanliness and audit requirements which are being looked into for being unconstitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause. Out of state manufacturers Legato Vapors, Rocky Mountain E Cigs, Derb E Cigs are suing the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission because the Act involves inconsistent regulations imposed by other states besides Indiana.

As a result, the states face a heavy burden of proof to show that absolutely no economic rationale was factored in their legislation, following the Court’s repeated assertions that “[n]o state may attempt to isolate itself from a problem common to the several States by raising barriers to the free flow of interstate trade.”

Palmer v. BRG of Ga., Inc., 498 U.S. 46, 49–50 (1990) (market division per se illegal); Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332, 356-57 (1982) (horizontal price fixing per se illegal); Klor’s v. Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 U.S. 207 (1959) (horizontal group boycott per se illegal); United States v. Socony–Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 218 (1940) (vertical price fixing per se illegal); Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373, 408 (1911) (price fixing per se illegal); United States v. Reicher, 983 F.2d 168 (10th Cir. 1992) (bid-rigging per se