DOC PREVIEW
UI LAW 8010 - Untied States v. Darby

This preview shows page 1 out of 2 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Case BriefCon Law, Commerce clauseCarlson, 3/7/15Identity of CaseUnited States v. Darby, 1941Page 210 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistoryCongress passes a law related to lumber manufacturing, with two provisions: (1) forbids the shipment in interstate commerce of lumber manufactured by employees who are paid insufficiently or work in unsafe conditions, and (2) prohibits the employment of men at less than minimum pay/work conditions to create lumber products for interstate commerce. Darby, a Georgia lumber manufacturer, challenges both provisions as not within the commerce clause powers. Statement of the IssueAre these provisions within the commerce clause powers? HoldingYes. They are different methods of regulating the same thing, creation of articles destined for interstate commerce. Because the manufacture has an effect on interstate commerce by allowing states to compete for monopolies by having the lowest wage requirements, and that unfair competition harms employees and commerce conditions interstate, the law is ok. ReasoningA switch in time saved 9…this reverses Hammer v. Dagenhart and allows the commerce clause to extend into manufacturing on its own power (without even invoking the necessary and proper clause, showing we might even be able to take this power further). The idea is that manufacturing and unfair wage competition actually do have an effect on interstate commerce. As long as the end goal is to better regulate interstate commerce, the means are acceptable.Hammer v. Dagenhart relied on a distinction (regulation of manufacture v. regulation of commerce) which “was novel when made and unsupported by any provision of the Constitution…” except for maybethe division of police powers and commerce powers. The court decides that regardless of whether the law intrudes into police powers, the effect on interstate commerce is sufficient to enable congress to regulate. The fact that a power can be abused does not mean that the law should not exist, when there are other protections in place through the state via a representative government.


View Full Document

UI LAW 8010 - Untied States v. Darby

Download Untied States v. Darby
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 Untied States v. Darby 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 Untied States v. Darby 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?