A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States 295 U.S. 495 (1935) Facts A case concerning congressional delegation power and the Commerce Clause. In 1933, congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act, which required the creation of codes of fair competition for businesses including trade practices, wages, and hours. The codes were to be drafted by trade association and other industry groups and sent to the president for approval. If no recommendations were sent to the president, he was to draft the codes. However, the NIRA did not set standards for the president to use in drafting or approving the codes and it regulated interstate commerce. A.L.A Schechter Poultry Corporation, a brother-owned New York poultry slaughterhouse in New York was found by the government to be in violation of the Poultry Code. Of all the violations the most egregious violation was selling poultry “unsanitary for human consumption.” A.L.A Schechter and the owners were indicted on sixty counts of violations, nineteen of which they were convicted of and sentenced to short jail terms. They unsuccessfully appealed to the court of the appeals and then appealed to the Supreme Court. Schechter argued that the NIRA was unconstitutional due to its attempts to override the prohibition of illegal …show more content…
The United States argued that the NIRA was within in commerce power of Congress due to past jurisprudence of the Court and because the effects of the Schechter Poultry Corporation on the national price of interstate
...right to file a claim against the city of Fresberg. The Commerce Clause specifically prohibits states from passing laws/ordinances based solely on economic interests. The City Counsel of Fresberg passed the ordinance solely with the intent to boost the local granite industry. This is not in keeping with a national economic interest, also The “Dormant” Commerce Clause means that because Congress has been given power over interstate commerce, states cannot pass laws or ordinances that discriminate against interstate commerce. Clearly what the City of Fresberg did with attempting to regulate the granite production for economic gain.
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
Case Name: Dyer v. National By-Products, Inc., Supreme Court of Iowa, 1986., 380 N.W.2d 732
The Schenck case in the early 1900s dealt with the freedom of speech as it related to the draft of World War I. Charles Schenck sent mass mail that stated “the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system” (Schenck v. United States). The federal government found this to be in violation of the Clear and Present Danger Test as well as the Espionage Act and arrested Schenck for his actions. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favor of the United States unanimously. The opinion of the court violates the free speech clause as well as a right to have peaceful protest by denying Schenck to share his opinions of the draft with others despite the opinion of the government on this action. Due to these violations the ruling on the Schneck v. United States case should be overturned in order to protect the right of free speech and protest to all citizens.
Often this case is coined as the "Emancipation Proclamation of American Commerce," it should be gladly called that because of the reflection on the elasticity of the great paper known as the Constitution. The case solidified the Congress held all powers to regulate any modes of Commerce. Gibbons v. Ogden would prevail with the inventions of trains and airplanes as modes of commercial activities. Congress, with this case, was later to pass measure that would outlaw unfair price fixing on transportation of foods and pass epochal measures such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
The beginning of Meat Inspection Act seemed to be at 1904, after “The Jungle” of Sinclair published. In fact, it started twenty years earlier, the regular law, used to satisfy Europe, the largest meat export market, but in 1865 Congress passed an act to prevent the importation of diseased cattle and pigs. Because of disease, European like Italian, French, and English restricted or banned the importation meat, and they turned to another supplier. Some bills were introduced but they failed to gather sufficient support. May 1884, Bureau of Animal Industry was established, it was doing good job in fighting Europe restrictions, helping the packers, but not helping the domestic consumers. March 1891, the first major meat inspection law was passed; some country removed the prohibitions on importing American pork. It distressed the European packing industry as well. So, they imposed more standards. Government had to do more action; major percent meat slaughtered was inspected. Some of companies exploited the law, but most of them, especially big companies agreed with the committee in 1902. In 1904, Smith, who was a great information aid to Sinclair, published a series of articles in The Lancet...
Although an investigation of the Bureau of Animal Industry, which provided the inspectors of the packaging plants, was ongoing, Roosevelt felt the need to have unbiased investigators look into the matter. Roosevelt and Agriculture Secretary James Wilson “asked Commissioner of Labor Charles P. Neill and New York...
The first of the legislation of the federal government in this time was the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. The Meat Inspection Act required the federal inspection of meats that were headed for interstate commerce and this gave much power to the big bosses of the Agriculture Department. The powers that this act endowed to the big bosses of the Department of Agriculture was to set the standards or the sanitary conditions. This Act basically gives the government the power to say what is sanitary and safe and what is vile and rank. The Meat Inspection Act was brought to the attention of the political hierarchy in great part to the novel written by Upton Sinclair. Upton portrayed the meat packing industry of Chicago as vile and disgusting. He expressed hideous images of rats and feces and other things very unfit for the food that they were eating. President Roosevelt read the book, The Jungle, and was totally convinced and he acted very quickly. In this, he sent a few federal agent to go investigate this convincing claim to see if it existed, they reiterated his disgusting results. Thus the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was passed by the Congress and by Roosevelt on its way to becoming a part of the incredible regulations of the Progressive Era.
The plaintiffs, Bosse and Griffin, sued Chili’s for negligence seeking compensatory damages claiming a patron who pursued them following their skipping out on a restaurant bill was acting as agent for Chili’s at the time the patron caused the plaintiff’s car accident and that Chili’s was, therefore, responsible for the crash.
The lawsuit seeks to reinstate rules that prohibit major meat and poultry producers who contract with farmers from engaging in unfair and deceptive practices.
Later in 1906, in response to public pressure for greater government intervention into businesses, he and Congress passed the Hepburn Act. The Hepburn Act says that “railroads can only charge the amount that is set by the government, and that the government was able to inspect financial records“#. The Pure Food and Drug Act, which brought about the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was next. This act says that all foods and drugs had to be tested and approved by a government official before they went onto the market. The Meat Inspection Act, “enabled the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to inspect and label meat products“#. Theodore’s concern with the destruction of the forest, prairies, streams, and wilderness led to putting the government in charge of the regulation of the environment with the start of the US Forest Service.
The Square Deal was imposed on three essential ideas, known as the 3 C’s: control of corporations, consumer protection, and conservation. Roosevelt strived to make certain that corporations wouldn’t have complete control over their workers; the corporations needed to offer protection and basic rights to their workers. Although, corporations wished to stay cheap and maximize their profits, Roosevelt wouldn’t stand for it and forced changes using his “big stick”. This lead to Roosevelt’s reputation of being a “trust buster”, ignoring the fact that Taft and Wilson actually disbanded more trusts. Roosevelt’s second element of the square deal was consumer protection. Roosevelt’s first matter was involved with the regulation of food and drugs that were available to the public. Roosevelt read a book by Upton Sinclair, known as “The Jungle” which exposed Chicago’s slaughterhouse industry. As a result, Roosevelt influenced the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. The passing of these acts helped prevent the adulteration and the mislabeling
... government inspection of meat products. The Pure Food and Drug act also passed after the Meat inspection Act of 1906. The packers denied the charges and opposed the bills to no avail. These bills protected the publics right to safe sanitary meat.
In the case Bosse v. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, from Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, outlines a court case between two teenagers Bosse and Griffin who were injured in a car crash after a Chili’s patron followed the teens out after they dodged their tab. This case primarily focuses on whether or not this patron, who remained unidentified after fleeing the scene once the teens crashed into a brick wall, was an agent of Chili’s restaurant. The article noted that the man who chased after the teens, in no way identified with the restaurant: “The patron’s car was unmarked; it bore no Chili’s insignia. He wore civilian clothing and no uniform or other insignia of employment at Chili’s.” The only interaction other than the chase he had with the