- 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.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Missouri v. Holland case brief
Missouri v. Holland (S CT 1920, p. 183)
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...