- plaintiffs challenged a trade agreement made by the President with the authorization of Congress (NAFTA Implementation Act) (we’re in Jackson category 1)
- plaintiffs allege that this has to be concluded as an Article II treaty, and is not legitimate in its current form
- the court rules that the trade agreement was legitimate:
- Constitution textually commits the commerce power to Congress, and the NAFTA Implementation Act deals with commerce
- Further, the president, in negotiating the trade agreement, was acting pursuant to his constitutional powers to conduct the Nations’ foreign affairs AND pursuant to a grant of authority from Congress (Justice Jackson’s framework: we have a presumption of validity because President acts within his own Constitutional powers and with the authority of Congress)
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Made in the USA Foundation v. US case brief
Made in the USA Foundation v. US, 242 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001)
Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...