Dormant Commerce Clause

When problems arise in our nation, we are left with a complicated crisis as to whose job it is to do what and who exactly should be taking care of any bad situation that seems to pop up with daily life anywhere in the world, but in this case, America. Certain governmental systems, such as Federalism, can be considered a solution to these crises. Federalism can be defined as the relationship between the individual state governments of America and the national or federal government of the United States;

The U.S. design of federalism and adjust of energy were two integral strands of energy partition—one level and one vertical. The reason for both flat and vertical power adjust was to ensure singular freedom, the objective the Founding Fathers had at the top of the priority list when they composed the Constitution. They trusted the best way to save singular freedom was to check government control. Each branch would check the other branch of the new national government. In any case, since a national

Giving states more power in terms of policy making, would improve new policies made from states and would allow state governments to make policies that pertain to what goes on in that state. Devolving power from the national government to state level helps provide a more localized outlook on political views and other issues. There are some issues with devolving power from national to state level such as adding more layers to government, which can complicate things. Many states use block grants, which

Comparing Forms of Federalism The legal definition of federalism per Merriam Webster is the “distribution of power in a federation between the central authority and the constituent units (as states) involving especially the allocation of significant lawmaking powers to those constituent units” (Merriam-Webster, 2003). This, in simpler terms, means that it is a form of government in which there is a breaking down of powers between two different levels of government that have equal status. The purpose

Dynegy, Inc. v. Yates Facts James Olis hired Terry Yates to represent him in the criminal proceedings that he was involved in while working at Dynegy. Olis acknowledge that he was responsible for his legal fees and his written fee agreement with Yates stated that “all fees are due when billed unless other specific arrangement have been made.” However, Olis told Yates and Mark, Yate’s associate, that Dynegy would be paying his legal fees, which is also confirmed by Cristin Cracraft, an attorney of

diligences in keeping separation of power (Judicial, executive, and legislator) has developed in many ways since the forefathers wrote the United States Constitution. In its depiction through the judicial proceedings has led to reforming how commerce clause is viewed. Let us take the constitution as a road map. Interpreting its powers has also form how congress uses those same power when it comes to the digression of law making (Legislation branch). In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), United States v. E

The H-1B visa, originally created to streamline admissions of temporary foreign workers to the United States, has become a topic of much debate between the foes of immigration and the information technology (IT) industry. The debate is focused on whether to increase the visa cap in order to alleviate what the industry describes as a shortage of IT labor. This argument, however, obscures the fundamental flaw of the H-1B program that deserves a more prudent examination. The current H-1B visa program

The United States government was created by the founding fathers to allow men to be free, but to also have a governmental system that protects that freedom as well. The United States government is problematic. It goes above and beyond the necessity and, because of this, is dysfunctional at best. The government today has gone beyond protecting the rights of American citizens. It has become a large entity that is wholly useless. The government of the United States is too large, therefore, this creates

Interpretation of the Commerce Clause by the US Supreme Court From the birth of the Constitution of the United States in 1787 to the Supreme Court cases of the 21st century, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been a great source of controversy in the Supreme Court. Simply put, the Commerce Clause grants power to Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” . When interpreted leniently, the Commerce Clause can give vast powers

Commerce Clause The commerce clause is located in Article 1, Section 8 and clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. According to the commerce clause, the Federal government has the right to regulate commerce among the U.S. and foreign nations and some states. The commerce clause has led to great controversy for many years. The commerce clause gives congress authority to legislate in many areas or address a broad range of issues. The clause however does limit the congress to only the regulation