Political Science Help Please :)?
1.Discuss the importance of Hammar v. Dagenhart in illustrating the Court's role in the conflict between economic liberty and social justice. Compare this opinion with the one from opinion in Hammar to the one in the West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. Why did the Court's attitude change? What other doctrines, or arguments, does the Court use to deal with this conflict?
2.Given the recent commerce clause rulings, the Court seems to be defining a difference between the power of Congress to regulate areas that are economic in nature and the power to regulate areas that are non-economic. In the former, Congress receives great deference from the Court. However, in the latter, the Court is more willing to question and overturn congressional judgment regarding the relationship between the legislation and commerce. A) Using cases we have studied, explain this distinction and what its application means for both the power of Congress and the states. B) Next, compare this distinction with the substantial effects or aggregated effects doctrine from NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel and Wickard v. Fillburn. Does this distinction represent a reasonable evolution of the doctrine from these cases or a departure? Justify your answer.
3. Hunt v. Washington and Maine v. Taylor are two cases that reveal the Court's perspective on commerce between the states. Use these two cases to describe and explain the Court's doctrine in this area. If, and how, does this doctrine differ from how the Court views commerce conflicts between the national and state governments?
4.During the Lochner era, the Supreme Court created a doctrinal distinction between the situations faced by male bakers and the situation faced by laundresses. A) Explain this doctrinal distinction. What provides the critical differences that allowed some state regulation to hold and other regulation to fail during the era of the Four Horsemen? B) After 1937, the Court began to consider “…an additional and compelling consideration which recent economic experience has brought into a strong light.” What is this additional consideration? What effect did this consideration have on the jurisprudence used in Lochner? (Hint: In other words, explain the underlying philosophy behind the jurisprudence of the substantive due process era, and the reasons why the “switch in time” was not a result of a judicial retreat, but a result of the dissonance between this philosophy and reality.)
5.In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, Chief Justice Warren identified the conditions that prevent the state from acting in an area of potential concurrent jurisdiction. What are these conditions? Now think about the more recent federalism decisions (NY v. US; Printz, PGEC V. State Energy etc). Is Warren’s test still applied to determine when the federal government pre-empts the state? If so, show how using evidence from relevant cases. If not, explain how the test has changed using evidence from relevant cases.
6.What are the three basic principles established in Gibbons involving Congress' power to regulate production? How are these principles evident and applied in Stafford, Shreveport, Champion, and Carter? Who wins and who loses, in the sense that power is gained or lost, under each of these doctrines? Next compare and contrast the scope and definition of commerce from Gibbons v. Ogden, and U.S. v. Lopez. Is Marshall’s definition of commerce still constitutionally relevant? Are Marshall’s principles still applied in Rehnquist’s new definition of commerce? If so, how? If not, why not? Use precedents to bolster your argument.