DOC PREVIEW
O-K-State LSB 3213 - 10th Amendment
Type Lecture Note
Pages 4

This preview shows page 1 out of 4 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

LSB 3213 1st Edition Lecture 3Recap of Lecture 2-Schools of Legal Thought (Natural law, Positive Law, Historical Approach, Legal Realism-Ford Tesla example-Hierarchy of Laws-Federal and State Systems-Hierarchy of Courts-Court Awards-Common Law vs Civil Law Systems-Legal ArgumentsLecture 3Federal Laws:• 10th Amendment• Anything not specifically reserved to the Federal Government is given to the states• Answers the question: When laws conflict, who takes priority?• Federal Law must have specific authorization in the Constitution• Opposite for the states• Checks and balances• 3 branches of government: Executive, Judicial, and Legislative• All have checks over each other so that no branch has full power• Why?• Keeps the government from becoming a dictatorship• Gives an opportunity for all to have a voice• 3 branches based on the premise that people use power selfishly (for themselves) so checks and balances keep that from occurringFederal Power:• Specific authorization in Constitution• Checks and balances• Preemption of state lawsLimits on State Laws:1) Federal preemptionThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.2) Privileges and Immunities3) Full Faith and Credit4) Dormant Commerce Clause2) Privileges and Immunities Clause• Definition• People in one state should have the same rights and privileges of their home when they are in another state.• Two-part test1) Substantial reason to discriminate?AND2) Interfere with essential activity?• Tuition? Marriage? Employment?• Example 1: Is making out of state students pay a higher tuition legal• 1) Substantial Reasons: state taxes- some of which go to the university; out of state students could be taking away spots/ opportunities from in state students• 2) Essential Activity? : This would only interfere if the quality of degree is different in state vs out of state; nothing legally states that college is a fundamental right or essential activity• VALID- MEETS BOTH TESTS• Example 2: Is it legal to charge more for a marriage license because both members of the couple are not from the state?• 1) Substantial Reasons: No valid reason; could make the state taxes argument, however over the long run the person from out of state moving in state will pay state taxes• 2) Essential Activity? : The right to marry is definitely a fundamental right• INVALID- DOES NOT MEET EITHER TEST• Example 3: The Oklahoma legislature decides that a $5,000 fee must be paid by companies that hire out of state employees, however companies who hire in state employees will receive a tax credit in an effort to decrease the unemployment rate in Oklahoma and motivate companies to hire Oklahoma residents.• 1) Substantial Reasons: There is a valid reason to want to decrease Oklahoma’s unemployment rate and hire Oklahoma residents• 2) Essential Activity? : Making a living and providing for yourself and family is an essential activity; This law would be interfered with as employers would be less likely to hire out of state residents• INVALID- DOES NOT MEET THE SECOND TEST3) Full Faith and Credit Clause:• Definition:• Each state must give validity to decisions made by other states• Example: collect a KS judgment in OK?• If you sued someone in Kansas and win and then find out that the person you sued is from Oklahoma and has all of their assets in Oklahoma. If you bring your judgment paperwork to the Oklahoma court, what must they do?• Cannot refuse to enforce the judgment so the judgment must be enforced in Oklahoma4) Dormant Commerce Clause• Commerce clause – federal laws regulate/govern interstate commerce• Dormant commerce clause – state laws cannot unduly burden interstate commerce• States cannot regulate activities that cross state linesBalancing testImportance of state interestvs.Burden on interstate commerceExample: Wine Maker Case:• Three tier system vs. Internet disintermediation in Massachusetts• 1 type of liquor license for wine producers; another type of license for distributors; and a third type of license for retailers• Growers decide to use the internet to sell direct to the customer- this is not allowed under the 3-tier system as growers do not have a retailers license• Law 1: favors in-state wineries• A grower in MA can sell in store or direct through the internet; however a wine grower outside of MA has to choose one or the other- direct online or in store• Law 2: favors small wineries• If the winery is small (produces less than 10,000 bottles per year), then they can sell direct on line or in store; if the winery is large (produces more than 10,000 bottles a year) than they must choose one or the other- sell online or in store• All wineries in Massachusetts are considered small wineries• Effect: one group can sell directly and through middlemen. Other group must choose.• Legal Issue:• Law 1: discriminatory “on its face”• Law 2: discriminatory “by design”• Does the discrimination violate the dormant commerce clause?• Applicable Law:• Commerce clause – federal laws• Dormant commerce clause – state laws• Balancing testState interestvs.Burden on commerce• State interest arguments: It would make a difference for in state wineries to expand or become a large winery which could “grow themselves out of the law”; the state should have an interest in growing state wineries; the state would bring in more tax revenue if they didn’t discriminate against out of state wineries• Burden on interstate commerce arguments: It directly burdens out of state companies because they have to choose; Massachusetts residents also have fewer opportunities to buy out of state wine• Legal Reasoning:• “State laws that alter conditions of competition to favor in-state interests over out-of-state competitors in a market have long been subject to invalidation.” This law argues for a free market The legal decision says that MA can do whatever it wants but cannot discriminate between in and out of state MA did not make this law until January 2015, ignored up until this point• Which legal arguments?• Natural law: Should be equal for both in and out of state • Positive law: They are just enforcing laws that have always been on the books• Historical approach: (“Long been subject to


View Full Document
Download 10th Amendment
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view 10th Amendment and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view 10th Amendment 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?