Montana v. U.S. Department of Commerce?
144930
It's not a meth question
78116
This question's been bugging me since last night 'cuz it sounded so familiar. Problem was, you got not one, but both names wrong. And the topic is not entirely an issue of residency, but Article IV, the interstate privilege and immunities clause. \n\nThe case name is Hicklin v. Orbeck 437 U.S. 518 (1978) (The Alaska hire case). Here's a cite to the case:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=437&invol=518\n\nHere's a quick synopsis from my outlines (from way back when): Alaska requires the Alaskan residents be given an absolute preference over non-residents for all jobs on the Alaska pipeline. It was held that Alaska's decisions to prefer its own citizens over out of state citizens impairs the out of state citizens' rights under the interstate Privileges and Immunities clause and is invalid. \n\nThe P/I clause prevents a state from discriminating against non-residents regarding rights that are fundamental. The rights that are considered fundamental are related mostly to commerce (right to be employed, practicing your profession,, the right to engage in business, etc). \n\nYou'll have to read the case for all the juicy bits; what I've written comes from notes from years ago.
774334
They both deal exclusively with federal employment.  OSC used to be part of the MSPB, but now is an independent agency, which can file charges and bring cases before the MSPB.  OSC acts like a prosecutor (or plaintiff's attorney), pursuing the complaining employee's grievance before the MSPB with the resources of the federal government.  OSC will not take up every employee's case though.  I think they focus on certain issues (whistleblowing retaliation, illegal political patronage/influence, and Veteran's re-employment rights) and evaluate the merits of those types of cases to before taking them up.  If OSC passes on a case, because it doesn't fall within their enforcement territory or because they think it doesn't have merits, the employee can still pursue their case before the MSPB with their own lawyer or pro se.
867344
One of the seminal cases on anti-suit injunctions, Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines, 235 U.S. App. D.C. 207, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984), provides a detailed analysis of comity. \n\nLaker filed an antitrust action in the United States against several defendants, including domestic, British, and other foreign airlines. The defendants filed suit in the United Kingdom seeking an anti-suit injunction barring Laker from proceeding with its action in the United States. Meanwhile, the district court granted Laker an injunction barring the defendants from proceeding in the United Kingdom. The D.C. Circuit upheld the importance of comity, stating that "comity serves our international system like the mortar which cements together a brick house." Id. at 937. However, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court:\n\n"Comity" summarizes in a brief word a complex and elusive concept -- the degree of deference that a domestic forum must pay to the act of a foreign government not otherwise binding on the forum. . . . However, there are limitations to the application of comity. When the foreign act is inherently inconsistent with the policies underlying comity, domestic recognition could tend either to legitimize the aberration or to encourage retaliation, undercutting the realization of the goals served by comity. No nation is under an unremitting obligation to enforce foreign interests which are fundamentally prejudicial to those of the domestic forum. Thus, from the earliest times, authorities have recognized that the obligation of comity expires when the strong public policies of the forum are vitiated by the foreign act. Id.\n\nThere may be different views among circuits as to the relative importance to be given to comity in deciding whether to file an anti-suit injunction. Compare Quaak, 361 F.3d at 17 ("We deem international comity an important integer in the decisional calculus"), and Laker Airways, 731 F.2d at 927 (anti-suit injunctions should be granted "only in the most compelling circumstances"), with Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 627 (5th Cir. 1996) ("We decline . . . to require a district court to genuflect before a vague and omnipotent notion of comity every time that it must decide whether to enjoin a foreign action").\n\nLaker Airways, 731 F.2d at 927 also states that courts "have a duty to protect their legitimately conferred jurisdiction to the extent necessary to provide full justice to litigants. Thus, when the action of a litigant in another forum threatens to paralyze the jurisdiction of the court, the court may consider the effectiveness and propriety of issuing an [anti-suit] injunction".
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?
253719
http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=1919&IssueNum=97\n\nThe author of that article and the attornies mentioned in the story...the ruling on that suit is pending, but the Federal Judge is leaning towards the Plaintiff (that's the inmates, in this case)
76897
Interstate Commerce Commission is a federal agency that regulates business between states.
196122
The proper cite is "Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc., 635 P.2d 657 (Ore. App. 1981)" or Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc., 54 Or App 480, 635 P2d 657 (1981), rev den, 292 Or 450 (1982). Because it is an appelate court decision, you may have to go to the law library if you don't have access to Lexis or Westlaw to look at the published opinion. It is published in the Pacific Reporter 2d and the Oregan Appelate Reporter.
714224
I think here in Michigan the biggest issue is whether we are going to allow a person to buy the office of Governor. I think restoring checks and balance to the federal government is also important. Dove hunting has become an issue as well as equal rights.
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.
361849
Men and their egos ....\n\nWith egos too big for spacious Montana, three men made legislators little more than yes votes, and turned judges into political pawns and newspapers into attack dogs.\n\nTheir dealings lent an air of sophistication in a state where cattle outnumber people, yet it gave Montana a political black eye – the kind of big one you could expect by telling an off-colored Irish joke at the M&M on St. Patrick's Day.\n\nWilliam A. Clark was the first of Butte's copper kings. An entrepreneur, he owned a bank in Deer Lodge but knew his future was Butte.\n\nBy 1876 he took over mining properties when owners defaulted on loans.\n\nThat same year, an Irishman with the fabled ability to peer into the ground for the next great strike, came to Butte to run a silver operation in what is now called Walkerville.\n\nDuring the next 24 years, Marcus Daly and William Clark would turn Butte into the biggest copper producer in the world. And they would fight like hell.\n\nDaly wanted to leave his mark in business. Clark pined to be a statesmen – already he was wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most. Each wanted to reach his goals at the expense of the other.\n\nClark made a quick fortune with mines, small smelters and other enterprises.\n\nDaly struck partnerships with financiers and developed the original Anaconda mine, which hit the world's purest collection of copper more than 300 feet underground.\n\nThe race was on.\n\nDaly and his partners bought up adjoining properties, imported laborers from around the world – especially the Irish – and went to work on a smelter west of Butte along the bank of Warm Springs Creek.\n\nHe founded a town there and nearly named it "Copperopolis." That name, however, was already taken so he settled on Anaconda. Today, the Old Works that Daly built is covered by a grassy carpet that beckons golfers.\n\nDaly's company was reorganized during the early 1890s, when it issued $25 million of stock that put ownership of the Butte Hill into the hands of out-of-state interests.\n\nStill, the likable Daly ran the local operation until 1899 when the Standard Oil Co. bought control.\n\nThe 1890s probably remain the most colorful, troubling and uproarious decade in modern Montana history.\n\nThe lessons learned had far-reaching effects for the young state and set its course for the next century.\n\nSteering that history were Daly and Clark, and a bit later the third leg of the copper king trio, Fritz Augustus Heinze.\n\nMuch of the "War of the Copper Kings" boiled down to Clark's ego, Daly's spite and Heinze's stealth.\n\nClark used his newspaper, the Butte Miner, to trumpet his run for senator from Montana and criticize Daly.\n\nIn response, Daly launched the Anaconda Standard, a broadsheet with splendid editing and artful taste.\n\nBut the two papers engaged in the sort of fight where truth was surrendered.\n\nDaly succeeded in thwarting Clark's crooked attempts to land a Senate seat.\n\nIn return, Clark became a Helena hero by making sure it would be the state capitol.\n\nDaly wanted his company town of Anaconda to be the seat of state government, and his supporters ridiculed "Helena's social airs, its cultural pretensions and its black and Chinese elements.\n\n"Helena, they intimated, was a sissy and un-American town!" wrote historian Mike Malone in his book "Montana -- A History of Two Centuries."\n\nClark, meanwhile, fashioned small copper collars that symbolized the danger of having a state government in Anaconda.\n\nIn the end, Clark won that fight and Helena houses the state's copper-domed capitol.\n\nAnd he also went to the Senate amidst one of the worst vote-buying bribery schemes in American history.\n\nIn 1900, the Montana Legislature sent Clark to Washington D.C. as senator, only to have the deliberative body refuse to seat him.\n\nClark returned to Montana and had Lt. Gov. A.E. Spriggs appoint him
1010792
It's Plessey v. Ferguson.
332521
I found links to the decision by the apeplate court but not by the lower court....hope this helps you though...see below\n\nhttp://www.bccla.org/othercontent/00twusccfactum.html\n\nhttp://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2001/vol1/html/2001scr1_0772.html
677007
I am a 3rd year law student and the answer is pretty much "yes". After a long line of cases after the Burger Court, the Court has been very deferential to allowing Congress to regulate activities "affecting, involved in or substantially affecting" interstate commerce. There are certain situations where it would be blantatly out of Congress's power to regulate (like something purely intrastate) but for the most part, Congress can regulate about any activity that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce.
166620
You will have to look it up. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.pdf
985672
Part of it is a jurisdictional problem. Laws passed in one country have no legal authority in any other.\n\nPart of it is a problem with Congress not fully understanding how the internet works, and trying to pass laws based on public opinion while ignoring the technological issues involved.\n\nBottom line, I don't think Congress should be mucking about with internet commerce. Or any commerce. Provide a means by which those who are harmed can go after the perpetrators, and leave the industry which knows what it's doing to handle the rest. So far, just about every attempt by Congress to regulate the internate has only caused more problems than it solves.
190432
im not sure about people, but i think that is when the state itself is not the plaintiff, but the people themselves, basically its not a government case.  There are only 11 commonwealths in the country, but i am not sure what the full listing is.  For example, Pennsylvania is a commonwealth so you you would never see the sate of Pa vx georgia ferret, but the comonwealth of Pa vs georgia ferret...