Section 1 Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section 2 The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. Section 3 New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Section 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. [The names of those who signed were as follows:]
George Washington - President and deputy from Virginia New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King Connecticut - William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman New York - Alexander Hamilton New Jersey - William Livingston, David Brearley, William Paterson, Jonathan Dayton Pennsylvania - Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouvernour Morris Delaware - George Read, Gunning Bedford Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom Maryland - James McHenry, Daniel of St Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr. North Carolina - William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson South Carolina - John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler Georgia - William Few, Abraham Baldwin Attest: William Jackson, Secretary
Case Name: BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
Citation: 517 U.S. 559 (1996)
- the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct,
- the ratio of punitive damages to actual damages (here it is 500 to 1 which does not bear a “reasonable relationship.”), and
- the difference between punitive damages awarded by the jury and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases (here, Alabama’s Legislature authorizes a maximum $2,000 penalty of $2,000 through its Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In Alabama, there were only 14 violations).
Case Name: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell
Citation: 538 U.S. 408 (2003)
Case Name: Champion v. Ames (U.S. Marshall)
Citation: 188 U.S. 321 (1903)
Key Facts: Congress enacted the Federal Lottery Act in 1895 , which prohibited the buying or selling of lottery tickets across state lines. Champion, was indicted for shipping lottery tickets from Texas to California. He challenged this on the grounds that the power to regulate commerce does not include the power to prohibit commerce of any item.
Holding: Upheld the federal law and rejected a 10th amendment challenge.
Reasoning: “Congress, for the purpose of guarding the people of the United States against the “widespread pestilence of lotteries” and to protect the commerce which concerns all the state, may prohibit the carrying of lottery tickets from one state to another.”
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
Citation: 247 U.S. 251 (1918)
Issue: Does Congress have the authority to regulate child labor by prohibiting the interstate transportation of products that were manufactured by children?
Facts: A father filed the initial action because Congress had passed an act which prohibited the interstate trade of goods that were manufactured by children.
Procedural History: A North Carolina Court ruled it was unconstitutional and the US Attorney General (Hammer) appealed to the Supreme Court.
Holding: Production is over once the products are offered for shipment which would put them into interstate commerce. Further, the fact that the products were “intended for interstate commerce transportation does not make their production subject to federal control under the commerce power.”
Additional Contention and Answer: It was further contended that the allowance of child labor in one state was unfair because it put other states that did not allow child labor at a disadvantage. “There is no power vested in Congress to require the states to exercise their police power so as to prevent possible unfair competition….The commerce clause was not intended to give to Congress a general authority to equalize such conditions.”
Holding: Congress does not have the authority to regulate child labor in North Carolina.
Dissent (Holmes): The statute confines itself to prohibiting the shipment of goods in interstate and foreign commerce that were created by children. This is interstate commerce and Congress is given the power to regulate such commerce.
Case Name: A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Citation: 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
Issue: Whether Congress can regulate as regarding the slaughtering and selling by defendants which was solely in New York.
Facts: Schechter is a chicken slaughterhouse in New York. Almost all the poultry coming to New York is sent from other states. Schechter was convicted on eighteen counts for violating the “Live Poultry Code.”
This Code required sellers to sell only entire coops or half-coops of chickens and made it illegal for buyers to reject individual chickens as well as regulated employment (collective bargaining, prohibiting child labor, 40-hour work week, and minimum wage). Came out of the National Industrial Recovery Act.
Holding: Congress cannot regulate this because Schechter’s activities only occur in New York and only has an in-direct impact on interstate commerce.
Reasoning: The interstate commerce ended once the defendants purchased the chickens and took them to their slaughterhouse. The flow in interstate commerce (or “stream of commerce”) had ceased.
Case Name: Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States
Citation: 234 U.S. 342 (1914)
Issue: Whether Congress can regulate pricing of a rail line completely within the borders of Texas in order to protect fair competition in interstate commerce.
Facts: Shreveport competed with Dallas for shipments from East Texas, but the skewed price structure (mandated by the Texas Railroad Commission), greatly favored shipments to and from Dallas over Shreveport. The Interstate Commerce Commission, acting on a complaint from the Railroad Commission of Louisiana, found that “an unlawful and undue preference and advantage” was thereby given to the Texas cities, ordered the company to change the rate structure to end discriminatory pricing.
In effect, the Interstate Commerce Commission was attempting to set the rate that the railroad could charge from Dallas to Marshall, a section of rail line completely within the borders of Texas. The railroads argued that “Congress is impotent to control the intrastate charges of an interstate carrier.”
Holding: Congressional authority “necessarily embraces the right to control… operations in all matters having a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic, to the efficiency of interstate service, and to the maintenance of conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms.” In other words, the Court allowed Congress to regulate intrastate transactions because of their impact on interstate commerce.
Reasoning: “Congress does possess the power to foster and protect interstate commerce, and to take all measures necessary or appropriate to that end, although intrastate transactions of interstate carriers may thereby be controlled.”