Case BriefCon Law, Commerce Clause Carlson, 3/7/15Identity of CaseChampion v. Ames (Lottery Case) 1903Page 195 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistoryCongress passes an act which forbids (among other things) carrying of lottery tickets from state to state. Champion was arrested for conspiracy to do so by hiring a company to carry boxed lottery tickets from state to state. Files a habeas corpus suit (*post conviction) saying that this law is beyond the powers of Congress. Statement of the IssueDoes the power to regulate commerce include the power to forbid certain articles of commerce, i.e. lottery tickets? HoldingYes, when the article is considered inherently bad, its proliferation can be controlled through the commerce clause. ReasoningIt is interstate commerce. It travels between the states, and there is payment to the couriers who are carrying it, and someone somewhere is paying for the lottery tickets. The power to regulate necessarily includes the power to forbid. The fact that this intrudes on police powers a bit (provide for the general welfare, morality, etc.) it is no argument that the law can be abused. If the states do not like a law which Congress is authorized to make, they are welcome to vote in new representatives. The motives behind the law are not given as much weight when the power of congress is complete, as it is under the commerce of the law. Evaluation Compare with the gun law case later. This one worked because there was a clear connection to interstatecommerce, but you can’t just randomly forbid things and say it is under the commerce
View Full Document