To achieve this, Cong. has prohibited even intrastate activities related to [marijuana] econ. activities (manufacture, –both distrib,…) and nonecon. activities (simple possession). Concl: Thus, authority to enact these prohibitions of “….Congress’s intrastate [marijuana] activities depends only upon whether they are appropriate means of achieving the legit. end of eradicating [those] substances from interstate commerce..” Modern Commerce Cl. Law Flow Chart 1. Does statute reg. of i-c.?” (Lopez category 1) means *Direct reg. “channels –“Channels” of clearly interstate commercial transactions.* (a) actual routes thru which trans. take place (highways, railroads etc) OR i-c. transactions themselves (ex. sales across state lines (b) Darby, Champion) – then SC will (likely) uphold. If yes, If no – 2. Does statute reg. of i-c. , OR in i-c.” “instrumentalities” “things (Lopez category 2) Means: Does statute reg. instruments/carriers that have traveled thru i-c. […even carriers are instruments of both and if intra- inter-state commerce]? Even though regulated act. is Shreveport Rate Case- intra-state- discrim. shipping rates this activity was so related to within TX-, shipping [by encouraging TX r.r. monopolies] to warrant interstate upholding reg. under Comm. Power (likely) upheld. A) If yes, [meaning it’s local, intrastate activity] B) If no – 3. Is statute regulating economic activity? depends on how narrowly/broadly [**Sometimes challenger frames activity “econ. – Ex. Is activity for which the regulated conduct substitutes (Wickard); “economic?” possess. & manufac. Of “intrastate marijuana” (Raich) Ex. Narrow: marijuana for home use “med. to relieve pain and suffering” (Raich O’Connor dissent) But sometimes ct. applies more rigid def. of “econ. activity” guns near schools not econ. act., Lopez – even under broad def. Wickard
To achieve this, Cong. has prohibited even intrastate activities related to [marijuana] –both econ. activities (manufacture, distrib,…) and nonecon. activities (simple possession). Concl: Thus, “….Congress’s authority to enact these prohibitions of intrastate [marijuana] activities depends only upon whether they are appropriate means of achieving the legit. end of eradicating [those] substances from interstate commerce..” Modern Commerce Cl. Law Flow Chart 1. Does statute reg. “channels of i-c.?” (Lopez category 1) –“Channels” means *Direct reg. of clearly interstate commercial transactions.* (a) actual routes thru which trans. take place (highways, railroads etc) OR (b) i-c. transactions themselves (ex. sales across state lines – Darby, Champion) If yes, then SC will (likely) uphold. If no – 2. Does statute reg. “instrumentalities” of i-c. , OR “things in i-c.” (Lopez category 2) Means: Does statute reg. instruments/carriers that have traveled thru i-c. […even if carriers are instruments of both intra- and inter-state commerce]? Shreveport Rate Case- Even though regulated act. is intra-state- discrim. shipping rates within TX-, this activity was so related to interstate shipping [by encouraging TX r.r. monopolies] to warrant upholding reg. under Comm. Power A) If yes, (likely) upheld. B) If no – [meaning it’s local, intrastate activity] 3. Is statute regulating economic activity? [**Sometimes depends on how narrowly/broadly challenger frames “econ. activity – Ex. Is activity for which the regulated conduct substitutes “economic?” (Wickard); “intrastate possess. & manufac. Of marijuana” (Raich) Ex. Narrow: “med. marijuana for home use to relieve pain and suffering” (Raich O’Connor dissent) But sometimes ct. applies more rigid def. of “econ. activity” Lopez – guns near schools not econ. act., even under broad Wickard def.
Constitutional%20Law%20I-%20Smith-%20Spring%202012.docx