| | |
|
AndrewCasciniFirstPaper 3 - 25 Feb 2010 - Main.AndrewCascini
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | |
<
< | Does the Market Participation Exception Make Sense? | >
> | Does the Market Participation Exception Make Sense? (I hate this title, it must change) | | | -- By AndrewCascini - 24 Feb 2010 | | | The Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause | |
<
< | GOALS:
The Commerce Clause. The Dormant Commerce Clause. Why we infer a DCC. What the DCC is designed to prevent.
TEXT:
Article I of the Constitution delegates many different powers to Congress. One of these powers is to "regulate Commerce... among the several states." This is referred to as the commerce clause, and this clause has been interpreted to authorize Congress to enact an extremely broad range of legislation.
While the Constitution never explicitly bars individual states from interfering with Congress' commerce power, the Supreme Court has inferred the presence of a "dormant commerce clause" from the text of Article I. This dormant commerce clause allows state and municipal legislation resulting in interference with interstate commerce to be evaluated and limited by the Supreme Court, even where Congress has passed no conflicting law. Legislation is often found to violate the dormant commerce clause on the grounds that the legislation is economically “discriminatory” to other states. | >
> | Article I of the Constitution delegates many different powers to Congress. One of these powers is to "regulate Commerce... among the several states." This is referred to as the commerce clause. While the Constitution never explicitly bars individual states from interfering with this Congressional power, the Supreme Court has inferred the presence of a "dormant commerce clause" from the text of Article I. This dormant commerce clause allows state and municipal legislation resulting in interference with interstate commerce to be evaluated and limited by the Supreme Court, even where Congress has passed no conflicting law. Legislation is often found to violate the dormant commerce clause on the grounds that the legislation is economically “discriminatory” to other states. | | |
The Market Participation Exception | | | Origin | |
<
< | In Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., the Court upheld a state program that aimed to reduce the number of junked cars. The state would purchase the cars, paying a disproportionate amount for cars with in-state plates and imposing less stringent documentation requirements from in-state scrap processors. “Nothing in the purposes of the Commerce Clause prohibits a state from participating in the market,” wrote Justice Powell for the majority. | >
> | In Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., the Court upheld a state program that aimed to reduce the number of junked cars. The state would purchase the cars, paying a disproportionate amount for cars with in-state plates and imposing less stringent documentation requirements from in-state scrap processors. “Nothing in the purposes of the Commerce Clause prohibits a state from participating in the market,” wrote Justice Powell for the majority. Choosing to buy in-state junk and junk processing serves was merely participation. | | | Limitation | | | GOALS: | |
<
< | Describe the downstream and upstream effects. | >
> | Describe the downstream and upstream effects. (does this need to be here?) | | | MARKET PARTICIPATION VERSUS MARKET REGULATION | |
>
> | THE DISCRETE LABELS, WHAT THEY SIGNIFY BUT WHAT THEY REALLY DO | | | All Participation Creates Market Changes
GOALS: | | | Talk about how a state, through its market participation, creates widespread industry changes | |
<
< | Regulation as a Label | >
> | PARTICIPATION as a Label | | | GOALS: | |
<
< | Just a label for a category of changes in a market, instead of a discrete action. | >
> | Just a label for a category of changes in a market, instead of a discrete action. THIS HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM REGULATION - the idea here is that all market participation creates market changes, so the court has just labeled consideration of certain factors "participation" and contrasted them, perhaps arbitrarily. | | | FINAL THOUGHTS |
|
|
AndrewCasciniFirstPaper 2 - 25 Feb 2010 - Main.AndrewCascini
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | |
<
< | Paper Title | >
> | Does the Market Participation Exception Make Sense? | | | -- By AndrewCascini - 24 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | Section I | >
> | BACKGROUND
The Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause
GOALS:
The Commerce Clause. The Dormant Commerce Clause. Why we infer a DCC. What the DCC is designed to prevent.
TEXT:
Article I of the Constitution delegates many different powers to Congress. One of these powers is to "regulate Commerce... among the several states." This is referred to as the commerce clause, and this clause has been interpreted to authorize Congress to enact an extremely broad range of legislation.
While the Constitution never explicitly bars individual states from interfering with Congress' commerce power, the Supreme Court has inferred the presence of a "dormant commerce clause" from the text of Article I. This dormant commerce clause allows state and municipal legislation resulting in interference with interstate commerce to be evaluated and limited by the Supreme Court, even where Congress has passed no conflicting law. Legislation is often found to violate the dormant commerce clause on the grounds that the legislation is economically “discriminatory” to other states.
The Market Participation Exception
The dormant commerce clause does not bar all state and local legislation that may in any way affect the interstate economy, however. The Court has carved an exception from dormant commerce clause doctrine in instances where states, through legislation, are deemed to be merely “participating” in the market.
Origin
In Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., the Court upheld a state program that aimed to reduce the number of junked cars. The state would purchase the cars, paying a disproportionate amount for cars with in-state plates and imposing less stringent documentation requirements from in-state scrap processors. “Nothing in the purposes of the Commerce Clause prohibits a state from participating in the market,” wrote Justice Powell for the majority.
Limitation
Yet market participation was held to have its limits. Eight years later in Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke, the Court ruled that states, while enacting legislation to enable market participation, must not “impose conditions having a substantial regulatory effect outside the particular market.” This restriction marked the “limit of the market-participant doctrine.”
"Downstream" and "upstream" effects
GOALS:
Describe the downstream and upstream effects.
MARKET PARTICIPATION VERSUS MARKET REGULATION
All Participation Creates Market Changes
GOALS: | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | Dictating behavior with your dollar. | | | | |
>
> | The Individual Model | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | GOALS: | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | Talk about how an individual, through his participation, creates changes in the market | | | | |
>
> | The State Model | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | GOALS: | | | | |
>
> | Talk about how a state, through its market participation, creates widespread industry changes | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | Regulation as a Label | | | | |
>
> | GOALS: | | | | |
>
> | Just a label for a category of changes in a market, instead of a discrete action. | | | | |
<
< | Section II | >
> | FINAL THOUGHTS | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | GOALS: | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | This definitely needs a conclusion, and you might want to distinguish some of the external reasons that might force the court to distinguish "regulation" from participation in states. Either way we need to expand this. | | |
|
|
|
AndrewCasciniFirstPaper 1 - 24 Feb 2010 - Main.AndrewCascini
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By AndrewCascini - 24 Feb 2010
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AndrewCascini
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |