APUSH 1979 DBQ From 1865 to 1900, the federal government was defiantly contradictory on their laissez faire economic principles. Although the idea was to keep the government out of economic affairs, the nation violated this by supplying land grant to railroads, taking control of interstate commerce, and the involvement of the antitrust activity. By providing land grants for railroads to build on, the government began going against their own policy, which was heavily supported by the people. Document D demonstrates the total United States land grants to railroads. There was a total of 131.5 million acres supplied by the federal government in the form of land grants.
State and local laws that conflict with valid federal law are unconstitutional. ..any state or local law that directly and substantially conflicts with valid federal law is preempted under the Supremacy Clause” (Cheeseman, 2010, pg. 70). Combined with the Supremacy Clause to support Dixon Trucking Co. litigation is the Commerce Clause. The clause authorizes the federal government to regulate commerce which has a huge impact on business than any other provision within the Constitution (Cheeseman, 2010).
Our founding fathers designed the separation of powers as so one branch of government could not become powerful enough to overthrow the other arms of government. I. During the Korean War, government imposed controls of raw materials, productions, prices, wages and credit. A. Price control created a nationwide threat of strike.
Congress boldly and broadly passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 under the power of the Commerce Clause. Congress very loosely tied the idea of someone carrying a gun to school or anywhere else for that matter, affected the economy and thereby fell under the scrutiny of the Commerce Clause. Lopez appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that it was unconstitutional for Congress to legislate control over schools, which are usually controlled on the local level. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Lopez, reversed the decision, and stated that it was unconstitutional for Congress to attempt to control schools under the powers of the Commerce Clause. The opinion of the court pointed to three areas Congress may act under the Commerce Clause.
Both believed that the war was just another way for large corporations to turn giant profits at the expense of hundreds of thousands of American lives in a war on foreign soil. Opposition to the war came naturally to both of them because of their contempt for American government and American business. With his rulings, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is clearly stating that freedom of speech shall be treated differently during times of war. Any incitement of insubordination or speech detrimental to the war effort would lead to federal prosecution. In my opinion, since Schenck v. U.S. established the clear and present danger test, and the Debs v. U.S. ruling was based on the Schenck precedent, both cases did indeed use the clear and present danger test.
If the truckers needed to weld these new mud flaps onto their trucks it would meaning loading and unloading their cargo. The time required to do these tasks would seriously interfere with interstate commerce. Congress usually does not step in when it comes to states making statutes about their highways. But when the statute interferes with interstate commerce, Congress may step in and turn the statue down as in the case of Bibb v Navajo Freight Lines in 1959 (FindLaw, 2011). If Tanya Trucker mentions this case to the court then they may consider the facts of that case and how they relate the case involving the state of Confusion and
ANTITRUST LAWS The Sherman Act of 1890 was created with the intention of investigating and pursuing trusts, companies and organizations who are involved in business activities that reduce competition in the market. The author of this act intended to “"To protect the consumers by preventing arrangements designed, or which tend, to advance the cost of goods to the consumer"i. The act can be broken down into two provisions:ii Provision 1: Every contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations is declared illegal”
The new Constitution sought to divide the powers of government among the different branches of government to provide a system of checks and balances of power. According to Fisher (2012) “The Constitution vests in Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce, an activity the Framers understood as closely related to the war power. Commercial conflicts between nations were often a cause of war. In 1824 in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice John Marshall said of the commerce power that "it may be, and often is, used as an instrument of war." Guided by history and republican principles, the framers placed that power and responsibility with Congress” (para
Prohibition in the 1920’s Prohibition took place because of The Volstead Act which was passed on October 28th 1919. The Volstead Act implied that any beverage that was over 0.5% alcohol by volume was illegal. The Volstead Act also indicated that the ownership of any item designed to manufacture liquor was illegal. This act created particular fines and jail sentences for violating prohibition (Feldman, “Prohibition: It Economic and Industrial Aspects”). The ratification of the 18th amendment in the U.S Constitution was officially passed January 16th of 1920 and went into effect on January 17th of 1920.
The legislation limited Northwestern Europe and Scandinavia to 142,483 people, and Southern and Eastern Europe to 18,439 people due to their involvement in the War. All other nations were limited to a mere 3,745 (History Matters). President Calvin Coolidge justified the Immigration Act of 1924 by stating that the tensions of WWI, which were still fresh in the minds of Europeans, could cause conflict in the U.S. For that reason, he thought that limiting the amount of immigrants from that area could reduce potential ethnic struggles between them in America. However, the limitations statistics simply did not back that statement up. When the Act did not keep enough unwanted immigrants from entry, the President decided to include a mandatory literacy test for immigrants 16 years or older.