Summary: Justice Johnson

Also in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution the commerce clause is stated. In the expressed powers, it says that Congress can ‘regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian Tribes.’According to the article on Cornell Law School, the actual word “ commerce” is not clarified anywhere in the Constitution so this clause can also be manipulated depending on the

There were significant differences between the governance system under the articles of confederation and the new constitution. The weaknesses of the later caused bad experiences and the clamor for a new constitution. For instance, under the articles of confederation, congress had no power over interstate or foreign commerce (Constitution Society, n.d). States made their decisions that were not always in the best interest of the whole nation. In addition, all federal laws were enforced by the states because congress did not have the capacity to implement them. The outcome is that some laws were ignored or misinterpreted (Ablavsky, 2014). This paper compares and contrasts the form of governance under the Articles of Confederation

First, under the Articles of Confederation Congress could not regulate trade. Via the law, the states had the power to regulate trade in any way that they saw appropriate. The only way Congress could regulate was trade with the Native Americans. Next, Congress had no power to tax the states. In the Articles of Confederation, the states were the ones who had the power to tax, not the federal government.

Gregory Lee Johnson was found guilty of violating Texas state law by burning the American flag at the Republican national convention in Dallas, Texas. The state sentenced Johnson to one year in prison and a fine of $2000. Johnson argued that the right to burn the American flag was protected under the right to free speech in the First Amendment. Johnson appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District in Dallas. The court upheld the conviction made by the state, and the sentence given to Johnson remained. Johnson then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and they reversed the decision of the district court and dismissed the charges. The state of Texas then appealed to the Untied States Supreme Court, and the Supreme

They made sure to change that in the Constitution. Now they are allowed to regulate trade between any and all states. They can also make sure the states follow the National laws in which the government was trying to enforce. And finally the biggest difference is the passage of amendments. Through the Articles Of Confederation, to change any bit of it they needed all 13 States approval. This made is extremely hard for the Articles to get an amendment in any way considering that every state had a different opinion on any view brought up in Congress. The big key in the Constitution is that you just need the majority, otherwise known as the two-thirds rule. You need two-thirds of Congress to accept an amendment to the Constitution to add it. Considering how much easier it is to bring in an amendment to the Constitution it makes our country a lot easier to establish fairness for everyone. During the years of the Articles Of Confederation not a single amendment was added. From the years of the Constitution there has been a total of 27 amendments. The most important however are known as the Bill Of Rights, or the first ten amendments.

As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that the national government has authority over interstate commerce as stipulated by the Commerce Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution. Therefore, it almost appears as if reserved powers are a systematically inferior granule compared to the supreme authorities of the national government. Moreover, the Elastic Clause, also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, as addressed in Article 1, enables the Congress “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution.” This insinuates that the Congress can carry out any action that is not directly specified in the Constitution but considered “necessary and proper” to exercise those enumerated powers that are specified. The effect of such clause was witnessed in the 1819 Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case, the state of Maryland imposed a heavy tax on a bank installed by the federal government to show its discontent with the government’s

The Supreme Court case United States v. Lopez (1995) set an important change to the Federalism era of cooperative, when it limited the power of Congress under the commerce clause for the first time. The Courts in this case took into the account not the board powers of Congress which have received extreme expansive over the years through interpretation but the limitations of these powers. According, to Gibbons v Ogden, the commerce power “is complete in itself, may be excised to its utmost extent, and knowledge’s no limitations, and other than are prescribed in the constitution.” However, there is limitation here too, the Gibbons Court points out. “Commerce power does not comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal and does not extend

Since the national government was so weak under the Articles of Confederation, a power Congress was given when writing the constitution was “to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states” , under Article 1, Section 8, the Commerce Clause.

The question is unique. In my judgment rules that apply to a host of other symbols, such as state flags, armbands, or various privately promoted emblems of political or commercial identity, are not necessarily controlling. Even if flag burning could be considered just another species of symbolic speech under the logical application of the rules that the Court has developed in its interpretation of the First Amendment in other contexts, this case has an intangible dimension that makes those rules inapplicable.”

only protected the rights of US citizenship not state citizenship. Miller thought that the first line of the Amendment made a distinction between US citizenship and state citizenship, therefore it only applied to US citizens not state citizens. This viewpoint treats the states as their own country with their own citizenship not as provinces within a country and could only strengthen state rights and help the states do as they please. From this viewpoint of the constitution suddenly laws passed in a state that conflicted with the constitution wouldn't because the Thirteenth Amendment only applied to US citizens not state citizens .

The powers granted Congress are enumerated in several different locations in the Constitution but the majority of its powers are set forth in Article I. The first of Congress' enumerated powers is its authority to regulate commerce among the several states. Since first being addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of Gibbons v. Ogden (Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824) the power of Congress to engage itself in the operation of interstate commerce has been expanded, over time, to the point where Congress' power to regulate commerce now includes any activities that "substantially affects" interstate commerce.

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress the ability to regulate commerce with foreign nation. Although the states do have some limited powers to tax foreign commerce, in dealings with foreign states, the federal government is the sole agent of all the people of the United States. In the matter of regulating commerce with foreign nations, the supremacy as well as the exclusivity of the federal government is generally understood. The state or local authorities have attempted to deal in foreign policy matters considered exclusively the province of the federal government, but their efforts have invariably been struck down by the courts. The state may generally have interest in regulating commerce, but congress have the

The United States in itself is a collaboration of united states, states with the ability to govern themselves as they have before in the past. Commerce Clause Article I, Section 8 , Clause 3 known as the Commerce Clause. Commerce Clause says “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” .Commerce Clause state that congress has authority to manage activities between the states and with nations and Indian tribes. The Commerce clause is also referred to as “ Foreign Commerce Clause” and “ Interstate Commerce Clause.” The Commerce Clause was when Congress wanted a new era of more federal regulation of commerce powers. The reasons why congress made the Commerce clause was for political problems and help balance of federal government and state governments. The Commerce clause was first used in 1824 because of the Gibbons v.Ogden to regulate power to interstate. Also Commerce Clause was used in “Interstate Commerce Act” in 1887 and “Sherman Antitrust Act” in 1980. The Commerce Clause in 1905 was used justify laws and help supreme courts to

The public should be the ones to elect Supreme Court justices instead of the President and Senate. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President, who represents the public, but the justices don't represent the public. If we elected them, they would represent the public more. Judicial activism is when a justice makes a decision in the court based on the law instead of their personal view or political consideration, but if they are elected by the public it will support the public

Your Honor, Ladies, and Gentlemen of the jury: This is a case between the US vs Jones. On October 24th, 2005, the defendant, Antoine Jones, was charged with the crime of drug possession after coming under the suspicion of trafficking in narcotics. The Police Department obtained a warrant valid for 10 days that authorizes the installation of a tracking device on Jones’s car in District of Columbia. However, the police installed the tracking device on the 11th day out of the jurisdiction of District of Columbia and therefore violating the warrant’s term. After nearly a month of investigating, Jones led the police to what seemed like a stash house containing $856k in cash and 97 kilos of cocaine. With the sufficient amount of evidence, the police