Sunday, March 25, 2012

Missouri v. Holland case brief

Missouri v. Holland (S CT 1920, p. 183)
  • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) had a statute to enforce it and MO complained the statute was unconstitutional b/c of the rights reserved to the states in the 10th Amendment.
  • Ct says that if the treaty is valid, then under the necessary and proper clause, the statute must be constitutional.
  • States have no possession over the birds due to their migratory pattern.
  • Ct says there is a huge natl interest involved and that this is something that can only be protected by federal action. Since it is not sufficient to rely on the states, the treaty and statute are upheld.
  • Congress can legislate in matters clearly the domain of the states under Art. 6 of the US constitution on p. 826.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Exploring Career Paths: What Can You Do with a Juris Doctor Degree?

Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...