A florist challenges the constitutionality of the Customer Non-Discrimination Act (the CNDA) on the grounds that it exceeds Congress’s right to regulate interstate commerce and that it violates his First Amendment rights. For this case, the Court is only determining the Commerce Clause challenge. The legal question the Court must address is whether Congress has the authority, under the Commerce Clause, to enact the CNDA, which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and additionally, expands the categories of public accommodations. To answer this question, yes, Congress does have the power to enact this legislation under the Commerce Clause for the following …show more content…
v. Lopez, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under three categories: channels of commerce, instrumentalities of commerce, and activities that have an effect on interstate commerce (local or not). Of the added categories of public accommodations that are subjected to federal regulation under the CNDA, all of which could fall within the categories and not contradict with previous precedents. After U.S. v. Lopez, two major cases struck down acts that did not fall within the three categories, and thus exceeded Congress’s commerce power. In U.S v. Morrison (in addition to Lopez), the challenged statute attempted to regulate criminal activity due to its connectivity to commerce (for Morrison, it was violence against women and for Lopez, it was handguns in school zones). None of the additions to public accommodations added by the CNDA resemble criminal statutes, and all of which are related to places, goods and services, or transportation. All of these subjects fall into the categories from the Lopez precedent. Additionally, the case NFIB v. Sebelius, was struck down because Congress was attempting to regulate inactivity, as opposed to activity. This is not the case with the CNDA. No one is forced to enter the market, and thus this falls within Congress’s power to regulate. One might argue that the activities included in the CNDA are purely local, and thus have little effect on interstate commerce. However, this point has …show more content…
U.S. supported the passing of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under this precedent, Congress can regulate local activities that engage in discrimination because these practices have disruptive effects on interstate commerce. Under this precedent, Congress has not exceeded the power given to them under the Commerce Clause. One could argue the difference between Heart of Atlanta Motel and this case is that the motel advertised nationally and along interstate highways, while some of the activities mentioned in CNDA do not. However, this does not matter. It is rare to find a business or service that does not engage in interstate commerce in some way or another. Additionally, Heart of Atlanta Motel supports the notion that discrimination can harm interstate travel, and thus commerce. In this case, the couple who was denied service was from Massachusetts, traveling to Texas. This is similar to the ruling form Heart of Atlanta Motel because the court opinion stated that the Model's discriminatory practices would discourage African Americans from traveling to the state. Discriminatory practices, under the guise of First Amendment rights, could discourage certain people from traveling or engaging in commerce in general, which could have a negative impact on interstate commerce. For these reasons Congress has the power to regulate this commerce under the
New Court rises as well as new found interpretation and modifications. However, the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the Supreme Court 's interpretation. Moreover, making the Commerce power is limited. As shown in various cases; the Elastic Clause hold within power. Granted that gives a looser interpretation for congress to work with. In the court case Maryland Versus McCulloch, left Congress with the power to control the traffic as it crossed the state line giving congress power of Commerce. This court case expanded the power of the Commerce Clause vastly, but, not sufficient enough to hold more power against the Elastic Clause. Although, many might object claiming the commerce clause is more powerful the issue is the clause is restricted towards solely commerce. Once again the Elastic Clause states congress can do what they deem necessary and
Affirmative Action Question: Newton and Wasserstrom seem to disagree about whether affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. Explain how each arrives at their position about whether or not affirmative action is similar to or different from discriminatory laws of the Jim Crow era
Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word “commerce” is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress’ power over commerce is first laid out in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. In addition, the case United States v. Lopez is a prime example of Congress’ ability to carry out the Commerce Clause to the furthest extent. Lastly, the case National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation brings to light the Wagner Act of 1935. Through a review of these three cases, it can be concluded that there are no real limitations on Congress when regulating commerce.
Shelby County wanted to argue if the renewal of all sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 are out of Congress’s jurisdiction, specifically Section 5 which does not allow for the district to revise Section 4. It was to be decided if Congress went against the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution.
In 1896 the case of Plessy v. Ferguson occurred and has been viewed by may people, including myself, to be very important in history. Homer Plessy, the plaintiff in this case, was a light skinned black man, who was arrested for violating the Separate Car Act when he entered a car specifically designated for white passengers on the East Louisiana Railroad in New Orleans (Hartman 99). Judge John H. Ferguson was the presiding judge of the Louisiana Criminal District Court. Why was it that states can constitutionally enact legislation to require separate accommodations in interstate commerce based off of a person’s race? This was the issue of the case. The Louisiana Statute under review in Plessy required railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in that state to provide equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored races and no persons were permitted to occupy seats in coaches other than the ones assigned to them based on race. If passengers failed to obey these rules...
v. Lopez (1995) continues to affect the judicial system to this day. This case is the precedent for many of the Supreme Court cases concerning the commerce clause. Following U.S. v. Lopez, the Supreme Court had many Affordable Care Act cases. In these cases, the powers of Congress, under the Commerce Clause, were again limited. The congressional powers were limited because the Court declared that the Affordable Care Act “did not license Congress to include in the PPACA a provision that required individuals to purchase health insurance”(Commerce Clause). The Affordable Care Act trials show that Congress cannot always make whatever law that they want, and they cannot use the Commerce Clause as an excuse or abuse its power. This case further proved the reasoning behind the decision in U.S. v
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
As a country it is important that we understand and value the importance of civil rights. The following cases demonstrate the importance of rights and liberties. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled on the inherent right to privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives. They determined that this was a violation of martial privacy. The state was attempting to fine and/or arrest people that were using any type of medicine or instrument to prevent pregnancy. This case was followed by Roe v. Wade (1973), where the Supreme Court not only gave women the right to privacy but also the right to have an abortion. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the Supreme Court gave parents in Ohio the right to use vouchers in order for their children to attend religious or private schools. While these cases protect liberties, the cases involving civil rights are far more reaching. In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court prohibited racial segregation of public schools. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that a “hostile environment” related to sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. The impact of protecting our civil rights ensures a more inclusive American
African Americans have been fighting for equality since the pre-Civil War era. Although the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments became realities, segregation and exclusion of African Americans from public places were the realities throughout the 1800’s and 1900’s. The Civil Rights Act of 1875, or the “Force Act” (pg. 157), only allowed the government to protect African Americans from being excluded by “public officials of state and local governments” (pg. 157), not private businesses. Thus, Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 polarized the nation, for the case declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” (pg. 158). As long as the accommodations for both races were equal, separating various public spaces was also equal; however, in 1954 “separate but equal” was reversed with Brown v Board of Education. Brown v. Board of Education focused on Oliver Brown’s fight for his daughter, Linda, to attend an “all-white Summer School, which was closer to home” (pg. 160). When the school refused to admit his daughter, Brown took his fight to the NAACP and then took his fight to the Supreme Court; subsequently, the Court decided on the case with the “consequences of segregation” (pg. 160), which concerned a lack of “equal educational opportunities” (pg. 160). As a result, the Court declared Plessy v.
I think that Corwin was correct because we can see both sides of the debate in several other cases in history, in which the Chasian view was not the majority, but ended up being a stronger argument if we were to look back in time from the present day. It would be interesting to use the principles argued in Calder v Bull as a lens in regards to the cases of Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v Ferguson, and Lochner v New York. In all these cases, the dissenting opinions, which were in line with Chase’s view, are the way in which courts are more likely to act today. The majority opinions however, made sure that the statutes did not violate the constitution, but did not argue whether those legislations were unreasonably denying citizens their health, safety, or happiness. We can say, taking the previous concepts into account, that the general purpose of the American Constitution is shortsighted the moment we lose the focus of interpreting it as a “social compact”. The questionable
According to Corley, Reed, Shedd, and Morehead, (2001) “the most important statue eliminating discriminatory employment practices, however, is the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act o 1972 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.” The appropriation section o...
Discrimination, in one form or another, goes on everyday in the world around us. Discrimination affects all of us whether we are aware of it or not. Discrimination is defined as “unjustified differential treatment, especially on the basis of characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion” (MacKinnon). According to Eugene Lee of California Labor and Employment Law “racial discrimination and racial harassment” are the most popular complaint when it come to discrimination in the United States.
The Constitutional issue that was addressed was whether the CDA violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech (Reno, 1997). The court found that the CDA did infringe upon the freedom of speech protection afforded in the First Amendment. The CDA was an effort to restrict inappropriate material from reaching children under the age of eighteen through the internet. However, the court found that the CDA’s language was too vague and because of that, it ...
Marketing is a system of business activates designed to plan, price, promote and distribute want-satisfying products, services and ideas to customers in order to achieve business objectives. Consumer law protects consumer’s rights in the marketplace as well as fair trading, competition and accurate information. On the other hand, ethical aspects of marketing are about making marketing decisions that are morally right. However, consumer law and ethical aspects of marketing have a lot of advantages and disadvantages in the marketplace, which impacts business 's sales and growth like it happened to: Harvey Norman, Nurofen, apple, etc.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Religious Discrimination as part of the Civil Rights Act is the subject of this term paper.