DOCSLIB.ORG

Federalism, the Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection Leon Friedman Maurice A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federalism, the Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection Leon Friedman Maurice A Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship 1992 Federalism, the Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection Leon Friedman Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Leon Friedman, Federalism, the Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection, 9 Touro L. Rev. 363 (1992-1993) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/221 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEDERALISM, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND EQUAL PROTECTION Hon. Leon D. Lazer: It is now my pleasure to introduce another constitutional authority whose opinions are held in high regard and who is cer- tainly a first-class scholar, Professor Leon Friedman of Hofstra University. He is a lecturer at the Federal Judicial Center on Civil Rights, co-editor of the volume "Justices of the United States Supreme Court," 1 and he is going to speak to us about a whole series of cases that do not fit easy categorization. ProfessorLeon Friedman: I did not think I would be hearing so many praises of Justice O'Connor, but I am going to be doing the same thing in another moment. This afternoon, I am going to talk about an important federalism case2 and some Commerce Clause cases, 4 all of which bear directly on the way in which state and local govern- ments operate. I would like to start out with a few batting averages, in terms of what the Supreme Court did last year. The Court found, par- ticularly in the area of federalism, one federal law unconstitu- tional. 5 As I add up my running total, from Marbwry v. Madison6 1. LEON FRIEDMAN & FRED L. ISREAL, THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT (1969). 2. New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992). 3. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Commerce Clause provides: "The Congress shall have the power... [tio regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes." Id. 4. Kraft Gen. Foods v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue, 112 S. Ct. 2365 (1992); Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Natural Resources, 112 S. Ct. 2019 (1992); Chemical Waste Management v. Hunt, 112 S. Ct. 2009 (1992); Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 112 S. Ct. 1904 (1992); Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 112 S. Ct. 789 (1992). 5. New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. at 2428-29. 6. 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). 363 364 TOURO LAW REVIEW [Vol 9 7 to today, the Court has found 129 federal laws unconstitutional. Prior to the 1991-92 Term, the Court would often invoke the First Amendment 8 or the Fifth Amendment9 in order to find laws unconstitutional. 10 It has been some time since the Court has found a federal law unconstitutional on Tenth Amendment11 grounds. 12 However, that is indeed what the Court did during this Term. 13 In addition, the Supreme Court found fifteen state laws un- constitutional. 14 Five state laws were found unconstitutional on 7. CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION, S. Doe. No. 101-36, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 239-42 (Supp. 1990). 8. U.S. CONST. amend. I. The First Amendment provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Id. 9. U.S. CONST. amend. V. The Fifth Amendment provides: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Id. 10. Federal Election Comm'n v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985) (federal restriction on political committee expenditures implicated Free Speech and Freedom of Association Clauses); Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76 (1979) (gender classification enumerated in Social Security Act violated Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment). 11. U.S. CONST. amend. X. The Tenth Amendment provides: "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." Id. 12. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976), overruled by Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528 (1985). 13. See New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992). 14. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992), Lee v. International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, 112 S. Ct. 2709 (1992); 1993] FEDERALISM, COMMERCE CLAUSE & 365 EQUAL PROTECTION First Amendment grounds 15 and three state laws were struck down on preemption grounds.16 The Court also found one state law unconstitutional on Fourteenth Amendment1 7 groundsl 8 and one state law unconstitutional on Fifth Amendment grounds. 19 Finally, in the cases I will discuss this afternoon, the Supreme Court held that five state laws violated the Commerce Clause. 20 According to my scoreboard, from 1789 to 1992, the United States Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional 2,112 local laws.2 1 In other words, there is a sixteen-to-one ratio between the Supreme Court striking down federal laws as compared to state laws. This reminds me of Oliver Wendell Holmes' statement re- garding Marbury v. Madison and Martin v. Hunter's Lessee.22 He said: "I do not think the United States would come to an end Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 112 S. Ct. 2608 (1992); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992); Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (1992); Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n, 112 S.Ct. 2374 (1992); Kraft Gen. Foods v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue, 112 S. Ct. 2365 (1992); Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 112 S. Ct. 2031 (1992); Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Natural Resources, 112 S.Ct. 2019 (1992); ; Chemical Waste Management v. Hunt, 112 S. Ct. 2009 (1992); Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 112 S. Ct. 1904 (1992); Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 112 S.Ct. 789 (1992); Norman v. Reed, 112 S.Ct. 698 (1992); Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Bd., 112 S. Ct. 501 (1991). 15. Lee, 112 S. Ct. at 2709; R.A. V., 112 S.Ct. at 2538; Forsyth, 112 S. Ct. at 2395; Norman, 112 S.Ct. at 698; Simon & Schuster, 112 S. Ct. at 501. 16. Cipollone, 112 S. Ct. at 2608; Gade, 112 S. Ct. at 2374; Morales, 112 S. Ct. at 2031. 17. U.S. CONST. amend. )IV, § 1, cl. 2. The Due Process Clause states: "No State shall ...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.... ." Id. 18. Casey, 112 S. Ct. at2791. 19. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992). 20. Kraft Gen. Foods v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue, 112 S.Ct. 2365 (1992); Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Natural Resources, 112 S. Ct. 2019 (1992); Chemical Waste Management v. Hunt, 112 S. Ct. 2009 (1992); Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 112 S. Ct. 1904 (1992); Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 112 S.Ct. 789 (1992). 21. S.Doc. No. 101-36, supra note 7, at 243-59. 22. 14 U.S. (1 Wheat) 304 (1816). 366 TOURO LAWREVIEW [Vol 9 if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States."23 This relates precisely to questions of uniformity of federal and state laws throughout the country. I. FEDERALISM Now let me turn to some specific cases because there were a couple of eyebrow-raisers during this Term. I think the most in- teresting case in the area of federalism, notably, state governmen- tal control, is New York v. United States.24 This case dealt with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments of 1985.25 At issue was the disposal of low-level radioactive material such as "luminous watch dials, smoke alarms, measurement devices, medical fluids, research materials, and the protective gear and construction materials used by workers at nuclear power plants." 26 The federal government gave the states many oppor- tunities to deal with the disposal of this material, but the states were not interested in dealing with it.27 This was a classic case of "not in my backyard."28 For instance, only three states operated low-level radioactive waste disposal sites: Nevada, Washington, and South Carolina.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS of the COMMERCE CLAUSE* Jom B
    THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE* Jom B. SHoLLEYt ON MARCH 4, 1935, the United States Supreme Court held in Baldwin v. Seelig, that the state of New York had no power to protect its milk Producers against underselling by the producers of other states even though the former were by law forbidden to sell below prescribed prices,2 and the resulting competition would go far to wreck the whole statutory system. The particular statute condemned forbade in effect the sale of imported milk in New York unless its producers had been paid the equivalent of the New York standard price. The gist of the opin- ion of Mr. Justice Cardozo is contained in the following excerpts: If New York, in order to promote the economic welfare of her farmers, may guard them against competition with the cheaper prices of Vermont, the door has been opened to rivalries and reprisals that were meant to be averted by subjecting commerce be- tween the states to the power of the nation.3 What is ultimate is the principle that one state in its dealings with another may not place itself in a position of economic isolation. Formulas and catchwords are subor- dinate to this overmastering requirement. Neither the power to tax nor the police power may be used by the state of destination with the aim and effect of establishing an economic barrieragainst competition with the products of another state or the labor of its residents. Restrictions so contrived are an unreasonable clog upon the mobility of commerce. They set up what is equivalent to a rampart of customs duties designed to neutralize advantages belonging to the place of origin.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception
    Michigan Law Review Volume 93 Issue 8 1995 The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception Benjamin C. Bair University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Commercial Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Government Contracts Commons Recommended Citation Benjamin C. Bair, The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception, 93 MICH. L. REV. 2408 (1995). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol93/iss8/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Dormant Commerce Clause and State-Mandated Preference Laws in Public Contracting: Developing a More Substantive Application of the Market-Participant Exception Benjamin C. Bair INTRODUCTION You are a state legislator. Your state's highway construction in­ dustry has seen better days, and unemployment is rising. Neverthe­ less, cities and counties in your state are hiring nonresident construction workers and buying cement and gravel from nonresi­ dent suppliers. Your constituents are upset that their tax dollars are going to outsiders, so you decide to draft a bill requiring all local governments1 in your state to fill at least half of their highway con­ struction positions with state residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Rejecting Origination Clause Challenges Merely Embody “Two Exceptions” to the General “Presumpt[Ion]” That “[A]Ll Taxes” Are Subject to the Clause
    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 8, 2014 Decided July 29, 2014 No. 13-5202 MATT SISSEL, APPELLANT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:10-cv-01263) Timothy M. Sandefur argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Paul J. Beard II and Daniel A. Himebaugh. Theodore Hadzi-Antich entered an appearance. John C. Eastman and Anthony T. Caso were on the brief for amicus curiae Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of appellant. Lawrence J. Joseph was on the brief for amicus curiae Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in support of appellant. Joseph E. Schmitz and Paul D. Kamenar were on the brief 2 for amici curiae U.S. Representatives Trent Franks, et al. in support of appellant. Alisa B. Klein, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney, Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Mark B. Stern, Attorney. Before: ROGERS, PILLARD and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS. ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Section 5000A of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5000A, mandates that as of January 2014, non-exempt individuals maintain minimum health care coverage or, with limited exceptions, pay a penalty. Matt Sissel, who is an artist and small-business owner who serves from time to time on active duty with the National Guard, appeals the dismissal of his complaint alleging that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • IS LESS Philip Hamburger† I. FREE EXERCISE
    HAMBURGER.BOOK.DOC 4/13/04 9:44 PM ESSAY MORE IS LESS∗ Philip Hamburger† I. FREE EXERCISE INALIENABLE .................................................... 838 A. The Inalienable Character of Religious Liberty ................. 839 B. The Definition of Religious Liberty..................................... 848 II. BOTH MORE AND LESS ................................................................. 858 A. The Contingency of Free Exercise in the Courts ................ 858 B. Mere Definition Rather than Condition? ............................ 861 C. Historical Explanations......................................................... 864 D. Expansion and Contingency................................................. 869 E. The Absolute Right of Religious Belief ............................... 872 F. Fratricide (or the Periphery Undermines the Core) ........... 874 G. No Harm, No Foul? .............................................................. 882 H. Other Examples..................................................................... 885 CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 890 S the First Amendment’s right of free exercise of religion condi- I tional upon government interests? Many eighteenth-century Americans said it was utterly unconditional. For example, James Madison and numerous contemporaries declared in 1785 that “the right of every man to exercise [‘Religion’] . is in its nature an un- alienable right” and “therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Precedents Activity—Answer Key
    Applying Precedents Activity Applying Precedents Activity—Answer Key Comparison case: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Precedent case: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) What you need to know before you begin: When the Supreme Court decides a case, it clarifies the law and serves as guidance for how future cases should be decided. Before the Supreme Court makes a decision, it always looks to precedents—past Supreme Court decisions about the same topic—to help make the decision. A principle called stare decisis (literally “let the decision stand”) requires that the precedent be followed. If the case being decided is legally identical to a past decision, then the precedent is considered binding and the Supreme Court must decide the matter the same way. However, cases that make it to the Supreme Court are typically not completely identical to past cases, and justices must consider the similarities and differences when deciding a case. The process of comparing past decisions to new cases is called applying precedent. Lawyers often argue for their side by showing how previous decisions would support the Supreme Court deciding in their favor. This might mean showing how a previous decision that supports their side is analogous (similar) to the case at hand. It can also involve showing that a previous decision that does not support their side is distinguishable (different) from the case they are arguing. How it’s done: In this exercise, you will analyze a precedent and compare it to Gibbons v. Ogden. You have been provided with information about two cases: 1) the background, facts, issue, and constitutional provisions/precedents of the comparison case (Gibbons v.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Cases
    SUPREME COURT CASES Marbury v. Madison (1803) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) NY Times v. United States (1971) Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Furman v Georgia (1972) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Roe v. Wade (1973) Schenck v. United States (1919) United States v. Nixon (1974) Korematsu v. United States (1944) Gregg v Georgia (1976) Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Regents of the University of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) California v. Bakke (1978) Engel v. Vitale (1962) New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Bethel School District v Fraser (1986) Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Hazelwood School District v. Heart of Atlanta Motel v US (1964) Kuhlmeier (1988) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Texas v. Johnson (1989) Marbury v Madison (1803) Issue: Separation of Power Court Case: Marbury sued Madison because he did not receive commission to be a justice of the peace. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue an order to force Madison to give him his commission. Court Ruling: Against Marbury. Ruled a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. 1st act of Congress to be declared unconstitutional. Precedent: established judicial review – power of the court to decide whether actions of Congress are constitutional. McCulloch v Maryland (1819) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Issue: Federalism (State v. Federal Government) Court Case: McCulloch was a branch manager for the Bank of the United States. Refused to pay a tax to the state of Maryland and was arrested. He appealed conviction on the grounds that a state could not tax the federal government.
    [Show full text]
  • Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service Charles Kivett
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 33 | Number 2 Article 8 2-1-1955 Constitutional Law -- Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service Charles Kivett Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles Kivett, Constitutional Law -- Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service, 33 N.C. L. Rev. 262 (1955). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol33/iss2/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 33 state corporation receives the same benefits and protection as intra- state vendors.20 If such an analysis is correct, the decision should have little prac- tical effect upon the present administration and collection of use taxes,21 because the way will have been left open to impose tax collecting obli- gations on foreign corporations which make deliveries into a taxing state after encroaching upon its markets by inducing (e.g., by direct advertising, mail and telephone solicitation, etc.) its customers to cross the state line for tax-saving purposes. On the other hand, if this decision means that such corporations may now escape liability, its effect will no doubt be to increase the number of merchants seeking to capitalize on the sales tax of neighboring states at the expense of the local market, thereby further increasing the difficulties of adminis- tration and collection of the use tax.
    [Show full text]
  • State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1986 State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A. Farber Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Farber, Daniel A., "State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause." (1986). Constitutional Commentary. 173. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/173 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STATE REGULATION AND THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Daniel A. Farber* The commerce clause empowers Congress to "regulate Com­ merce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."I Although it speaks only of congressional power, the clause has been interpreted to empower the federal courts to enjoin state laws that interfere unduly with interstate commerce.z Since the Marshall Court, the Supreme Court has continually modified its definition of the judicial role in overseeing state regula­ tion.3 The Court's current view of the so-called "dormant" com­ merce clause, in a nutshell, is as follows.4 State regulations having a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce are subject to stringent judicial scrutiny even if the discrimination was inadvertent.S On the other hand, regulations that burden interstate commerce without discriminating against it are subject to a less rigorous balancing test:6 a state law that burdens local and interstate commerce equally will be upheld if the law's local benefits outweigh the burden * Professor of Law, University of Minnesota.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Legitimacy of the Dormant Commerce Clause
    FRIEDMAN&DEACON_BOOK_UPDATED 11/24/2011 8:10 AM A COURSE UNBROKEN: THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY OF THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Barry Friedman and Daniel T. Deacon* INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 1877 I. THE FOUNDERS’ FEARS ............................................................. 1884 A. The Threat ............................................................................ 1884 B. Were the Framers Wrong? (Does It Matter?) ................... 1886 C. A Constitution for the Future ............................................. 1894 II. THE REJECTION OF THE “NEGATIVE” AND THE ADOPTION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ............................................. 1896 III. THE JUSTICIABLE COMMERCE CLAUSE .................................. 1903 A. The Argument for Commerce Clause Exclusivity............ 1905 B. Though Exclusive, States Retained the Police Power ...... 1914 1. The State’s Power of Police .......................................... 1917 2. Shifting Lines................................................................. 1920 C. The Longstanding Acceptance of the Dormant Commerce Power ................................................................ 1928 1. The Absence of Support for Full Concurrence........... 1929 2. Avoiding the Issue by Dissembling.............................. 1932 INTRODUCTION HO is the better originalist, Justice Thomas or Justice Ste- W vens? More attuned to constitutional history, Justice Scalia or Justice Brennan? In one area, at least, the answers
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction Stripping Circa 2020: What the Dialogue (Still) Has to Teach Us
    MONAGHAN IN PRINTER FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 9/16/2019 3:03 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 69 OCTOBER 2019 NUMBER 1 JURISDICTION STRIPPING CIRCA 2020: WHAT THE DIALOGUE (STILL) HAS TO TEACH US HENRY P. MONAGHAN† ABSTRACT Since its publication in 1953, Henry Hart’s famous article, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, subsequently referred to as simply “The Dialogue,” has served as the leading scholarly treatment of congressional control over the federal courts. Now in its seventh decade, much has changed since Hart first wrote. This Article examines what lessons The Dialogue still holds for its readers circa 2020. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................2 A. 1953 and Beyond ......................................................................2 B. The Dialogue: A Preliminary Look ........................................5 I. The Essential Role of the Supreme Court ........................................10 A. Hart and the Court’s Essential Role....................................10 B. The Critical Responses and the Apparently Dominant View.........................................................................................13 C. Textual and Other Ambiguities ............................................16 D. The Supreme Court, Limited Government, and the Rule of Law...........................................................................................21 E. Purpose and Jurisdiction-Stripping ......................................27
    [Show full text]
  • Appellant's Brief in Support of Appeal of Dismissal
    20140194 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JUNE 25, 2014 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Paul J. Sorum ) Petitioner and Appellant ) SUPREME COURT vs. ) No. 20140194 Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota ) Drew Wrigley, Lt. Governor of North Dakota ) Ryan Taylor, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Governor of ND ) Ellen Chaffee, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Lt. Gov. of ND ) Al Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State ) Respondents and Appellees ) (Ref. Burleigh County CASE NO. 08-2014-CV-0173) APPELLANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF DISMISSAL Brief By: Paul J. Sorum, Petitioner/Appellant 3501 Calypso Dr, Bismarck, North Dakota 58504 Phone: 701-219-5601 I Table of Contents Section Paragraph Nature and Facts of Case and Proceedings ............................................... 1 Legal Argument ......................................................................................... 18 Discrimination is Severe and Pervasive ................................................... 51 Relief Requested ......................................................................................... 65 II TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASE LAW Citation Paragraph Ableman v. Booth, 62 US 506 - Supreme Court 1859 ..................................................... 14 Francis v. Francis, 2014 ND 111 - ND: Supreme Court 2014 ........................................ 28 Gullickson v. Kline, 2004 ND 76, ¶ 16, 678 N.W.2d 138 ................................................ 28 Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F. 3d 130 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2008 ........... 51 James Valley Grain v. David, 2011 ND 160, 802 N.W.2d 158 ...................................... 1(3) Kiner v. Well, 71 N.W.2d 743, 750-51 (N.D. 1955) ..................... 21, 22, 23, 24, 47, 48, 49 North Dakota Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07................................... 3, 6, 23, 26, 48 Parr v. Woodmen, 791 F. 2d 888 - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1986 .................. 54, 55 Planned Parenthood v.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourteenth Amendment
    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS GUARANTEED PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP, DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CONTENTS Page Section 1. Rights Guaranteed ................................................................................................... 1671 The Fourteenth Amendment and States’ Rights ............................................................. 1671 Citizens of the United States ............................................................................................ 1671 Privileges or Immunities .................................................................................................... 1674 Due Process of Law ............................................................................................................ 1678 Generally ...................................................................................................................... 1678 Definitions .................................................................................................................... 1679 ‘‘Person’’ ................................................................................................................. 1679 ‘‘Property’’ and Police Power ............................................................................... 1681 ‘‘Liberty’’ ................................................................................................................ 1682 The Rise and Fall of Economic Substantive Due Process: Overview ...................... 1682 Regulation of Labor Conditions .................................................................................
    [Show full text]