conflict between commerce clause and police power?
102718
The commerce clause deals with interstate interests while the police power deals with in state interests. For awhile it seemed like congress was overruning the state powers until about 1998 when it decided that congress had carried it too far and required that the constitutional standard for rational basis be met as more than lip service.
922369
Article Six of the US Constitution says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding," which essentially meas that federal law always supersedes state law.\n\nThe Supreme Court has ruled that, since marijuana is sold across state lines and more often than not comes from outside the country altogether, Congress can regulate pot under the Commerce Clause. Congress can even regulate non-interstate sale of pot because it affects interstate commerce.
43584
Who's policing the POLICE? The founders knew what they were doing when they set up the balance of power branches of government. Bush IS the executive branch which "enforces the laws" The law (fourth amendment) doesn't allow for "illegal search and seizure" Just another attempt to scare us into taking away our human (and constitutional)rights. Bush cannot say it's the law because I SAY SO!    "Those that give up liberty for the sake of security, deserve neither"!!!---Benjamin Franklin
388043
This is a difficult one because the law only protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure.  Meaning, you can't do it just out nowhere.\n\nBut there was reason.  Property was missing, and you could have refused.\n\nHere's more info:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure
10927
Corruption is the problem.  Be careful handing out cash.  If the cop is honest, you could be charged with bribing a law enforcement officer.
705324
Only for non-US citizens.\n\nThe MCA directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent, and the plain text of the constitution, which mandates that 5th and 6th Amendment protections apply to anyone held in custody by the US govt, and anyone prosecuted by the US govt.\n\nIt also directly violates Article I Section 9, by suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus. As the Supreme Court ruled over a hundred years ago, the phrase "except during rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it" means that as long as the federal courts are open for business, they can hear Habeas petitions for anyone detained or held prisoner by the federal government.  \n\nThe law is facially unconstitutional. The only question is, can someone come up with a creative jurisdictional standing argument and find a way to get a federal court to hear the constitutional challenge?
529306
The charge for sales tax is clever!  You were smart to think of it.  It might help for trial if you can give the judge a copy of the law or regulation involved on that point.  Also, does Illinois require tattoo shops to be licensed with the Health Dept. or similar agency, and are they licensed?  The main issue for the judge, I think, will be: WHAT DOES THE WRITTEN CONTRACT SAY and can you show they didn't do what the contract promises they will?  Suppose they say, the instruction, etc., would have come in the second 100 hours?  Good luck, let us know what happens.
634220
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits federal military units from interfering with local law enforcement, except in time of war, insurrection or national emergency.  By using unarmed national guard units in supportive roles Bush is hoping slide this one past the lawyers. He apparently has given up his argument that anything goes because we are in a state of war.
1174452
This separate "Memorandum" is an attachment to a R.I.C.0 Civil Action. The Memorandum provides irrefutable evidence that Titles 3, 18, 21, and 28 of the United States Code, and the Federal Magistrates Act, were not, nor ever has been enacted into law, or at least, law that applies to the sovereign people of the several States.   \n\nThe Courts and Prosecutors promote and rely on the general misconception that any statute passed by a legislature is valid and/or applicable to everyone equally. It is impossible for both the Constitution, and a law violating it to be valid; one or the other must prevail. \n\n The United States Code (USC) includes a raft of laws pertaining to production, distri­bution, purchase and use of marijuana, cocaine, and other commodities presently classified as controlled dangerous substances. If in fact, you were to read all fifty titles of the Code (USC) from cover to cover, you would find that some provision in the Code regulates nearly every aspect of life; the object obviously being to impose Federal authority over subject classes from cradle to grave. The Code clearly exceeds enumerated powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, we must conclude that at least some portions of the Code do not apply to the several States and the American people at large. Either that, or the Constitution has been pitched out the window.  \n\nNON-ENACTED STATUTES \n\n The United States Code -- Titles 3, 18, 21, 28, and others, were allegedly enacted into federal law on June 25, 1948; supposedly "positive law" enacted by Congress. However, by consulting the Congressional Record, Vol.94, Part 7 (covering June 15, 1948 to June 19, 1948, p.8229-9160), and Vol. 94, Part 8 (covering July 26, through December 31, 1948, p. 9353), it is found that Congress was not assembled in session on June 25, 1948. Thus, Congress did not enact these Code-Titles in question. \n\nRead the full Memorandum under "Articles" at the site referenced below. The RICO lawsuit against two judges is also there.
606648
under law enforcement...wrong category
839511
The Supreme Court held that "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ****except**** where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is ***likely*** to incite or produce such action. "\n\nThat means that the law is only operative where the criminal conduct is likely to succeed.  This stands in stark contrast to crimes of Attempt, which can be prosecuted even when the act attempted is impossible; for example, attempted Murder against a dead body that the Defendant does not know is dead. \n\nThis requirement that the violence be likely may well nullify the entire statute under the Void for Vagueness doctrine.  How are police supposed to know when it is likely to succeed?
1156984
An unfortunate fact of the " Zero Tolerance" policy that allowed seizure of property obtained by illegal means, is that MUCH of the property winds up MISSING!!\n\nWhether it is the POLICE who are 'spiriting it away', or simply terrible bureaucratic recordkeeping is unclear, but the fact still remains that the missing property does not end up fattening the public coffers through public auction as it should.
339112
Legislation enacted by the federal and various state governments to regulate trade and commerce by preventing unlawful restraints, price-fixing, and monopolies, to promote competition, and to encourage the production of quality goods and services at the lowest prices, with the primary goal of safeguarding public welfare by ensuring that consumer demands will be met by the manufacture and sale of goods at reasonable prices.\n\nNo Competition/Antitrust law seeks to make businesses compete fairly. It has had a serious effect on business practices and the organization of U.S. industry. Premised on the belief that free trade benefits the economy, businesses, and consumers alike, the law forbids several types of restraint of trade and monopolization. These fall into four main areas: agreements between competitors, contractual arrangements between sellers and buyers, the pursuit or maintenance of monopoly power, and mergers.
1044646
Section 1983 would allow you to sue the DA, a person acting under the color of state law, if the DA violated any of your federally protected constitutional rights.  In order to bring this action, you would have to show 1) that the DA was acting under the color of state law, meaning that he was acting as a DA, in the scope of his employment, 2) that the DA deprived you of your constitutional rights.  This is a difficult theory of law to prevail upon, and is usually used against police officers or in situations in which a person is being detained or is in custody of the governmental actor or entity.  Without knowing more, I couldn't say with certainty, but can say that its unlikely that you'd be able to prevail against the DA on this theory.
562107
Yes, this is a HUGE separation of powers question.  While a valid search warrant was issued, the FBI (in my opinion) over-stepped their bounds.  You can look forward to this going all the way to the Supreme Court.
109512
It does appear that way. I am not sure if antitrust laws apply to mergers though. With very large mergers I do think people do question the lawfulness of the transaction. I am not too sure though.
530459
One would think interstate commerce would involve multiple states, but commerce that occurs entirely within one state can be considered "interstate commerce" for constitutional purposes.\n\nSee Wickard v. Filburn, or the more recent medicinal marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich.\n\nIn those cases, wheat (Wickard) and marijuana (Raich) that were never sold and used solely by the growers were both considered to be part of "interstate commerce" and could by regulated by Congress, because they might have an effect on interstate commerce if all people acted in that manner, it would affect interstate commerce in wheat or marijuana