Emanuel MBEs 12/30

EP clause, NOT 15^th A right to vote!
[State is making it tough for a party (who are members of a racial minority) to get on ballot]

• both states and fed govt-->prohibits either from denying any citizen right to vote based on race/color.

gives Congress substantive power to tax and spend, limited only by the requirement that taxing and spending be for the general welfare.

Federal statute appropriated $7 mill for a nationwide contest on “How US Can Best Stop Drug Abuse” valid b/c 1. Eradication of drug abuse would contribute to the “general welfare” and contest is a rational way of using fed funds to generate ideas for doing this (exceptionally rare for USSC to conclude that a particular taxing or spending scheme doesn’t bear the requisite connection to the “general welfare”; and 2. The contest rules, and structure for running the contest, are sufficiently specific that the requirement of “intelligible principle” guiding the delegation would be found to be satisfied.

For any speech or debate in either House of Rep or Senate, members of Congress shall not be questioned in any other place.** Applies to Senator and legislative aid-->may assert senator’s immunity for assistance to senator in preparing his speech!!!!

Applies to classification which determines people’s rights. If classification is suspect or determines who may exercise a fundamental right = strict scrutiny

race and alienage

1^st A rights, interstate travel, voting, and privacy

RATIONAL RELATION test applies! [Statute is consl b/c there is a RATIONAL BASIS for differentiating b/w the possession of snipe traps as interstate cargo by common carriers and possession of snipe traps by private individuals.]

Only if it involves waiting periods before new residents may receive crucial govt benefits or services

1. a power is held by both fed govt and states --> concurrent power And, 2. There’s a state law and fed law on the SAME SUBJECT.

Ct will determine whether the GENERAL INTENT OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE either AUTHORIZES OR FORBIDS the state law.

1. Determine if there’s a DIRECT conflict b/w the state and federal law. If yes, then the fed law will take precedence under Supremacy Clause – Art VI, Sec. 2. If no direct conflict, determine if Congress INTENDED TO PREEMPT THE ENTIRE FIELD IN QUESTION-->Examine: 1. The traditional classification of the subject matter, whether historically local or fed; 2. Pervasiveness of the fed regulation; 3. Similarity b/w state and fed law (the more they coincide, more likely fed law intended to supercede state law); and 4. The need for uniform national regulation.

Crts judge state regulation of interstate commerce under Commerce Clause ONLY when Congress expressly authorizes such regulation (although Congress cant authorize states to violate EP Clause)

Trade usage: Any usage of trade in the vocation/trade in which the parties are engaged or of which they are or should be aware GIVES PARTICULAR MEANING TO AND SUPPLEMENT OR QUALIFY TERMS OF AN AGMT.