WILLIAM MITCHELL COLLEGE OF LAW

FINAL EXAMINATION

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW POWERS

Professor Pannier

Friday, December 8, 1995

(6:30 p.m.)(2 hours)


                                                                                                                                             Student Test No. ________

1 For anonymity, use your assigned test number which was mailed to you.

2. Put your test number on this page and on all bluebooks.

3. If you do not know your test number, you may obtain it in the Registrar's Office (Cindy Egeness) during the first 30 minutes of the exam period.

4. If you do not use your test number, you will be deemed to have waived your privilege of anonymous grading.

5. TURN IN YOUR BLUEBOOKS AND THIS EXAM AT THE END OF THE PERIOD.

STUDENT CONDUCT

                  IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE:

1. To use any sources which are forbidden by the instructor to complete an exam.

2. To submit as one's own work the work of another.

3. To engage in any conduct which tends to give an unfair advantage to any student in any academic matter.

Knowledge of any violation should be promptly reported.

VIOLATIONS OF THE STUDENT CONDUCT CODE MAY RESULT IN

EXPULSION OR SUSPENSION FROM THE COLLEGE OR DISMISSAL FROM THE CLASS.

GRADUATING SENIORS: If you are a graduating senior, note this fact on all bluebooks and this exam paper. DO SO CONSPICUOUSLY.

TYPING AREA: If you are going to type your examination, the typing area is located in Room

107. You must return the exam to this room at the conclusion of the exam period.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

This is a closed-book Constitutional Powers examination consisting of two one-hour questions. Each answer will be graded separately and so must stand alone. Thus, in writing any single answer, do not refer to anything in the other answer. You may refer to statements made earlier within a given answer.

Each answer will be weighted equally with the other. Thus, it is unwise to spend more than the recommended time for any single answer.

Discuss all issues reasonably presented, even if resolution of any particular one would by itself dispose of the problem. Specify all reasons supporting your conclusions, including alternative grounds and possible contrary arguments.

If you believe that, with respect to any particular issue, there are insufficient facts to warrant any conclusion, indicate what additional facts would be relevant and why.

If you believe that any statement of fact is ambiguous, resolve the ambiguity for yourself, indicating its nature and your method of resolution.

No credit will be given for simply observing that the examination instructions state that a certain issue should not be discussed or that the reader should assume that some particular legal principle is satisfied.

Please write on only one side of each page. Please use complete sentences. Thank you and good luck.


QUESTION I (ONE HOUR)

Congress held hearings on the national problem of delinquency in child-support obligations. Testimony in the hearings established that of the $48 billion in child-support payments owed throughout the United States, a total of $35 billion has never been collected. Of that amount (i.e., $35 billion), the so-called "interstate cases" are responsible for $14 billion, (where an "interstate case" is one in which the obligor-parent and her or his child reside in different states. Testimony also established that many states are not diligent in enforcing child-support obligations. Many witnesses urged Congress to make failure to pay child-support obligations a federal crime. These witnesses also urged Congress to force the states to make such failure a crime under their own respective state law as well. This last recommendation was motivated both by the desire to enlist the states' help in combating this national problem and by the desire to create an even stronger incentive for people to comply with child-support obligations by the prospect of potential criminal liability under both federal and state law. At the conclusion of the hearings, Congress enacted, and the President signed, the Child-Support Recovery Act (CSRA).

Section 1 of the CSRA makes it a federal crime to "willfully fail to pay child-support obligations that are either one year overdue or are greater than $5,000."

Section 2 of the CSRA provides that "The Secretary of Transportation shall withhold 70% of the federal highway funds otherwise allocable to a state from any state which fails to enact legislation making the willful failure to pay child support obligations that are either one year overdue or are greater than $5,000 a crime under state law."

Many of the states had already made the failure to make child support payments a crime under state law, but the definitions of the crime and the penalties attached to violations varied widely from state to state. In 1994 the total amount of federal financial aid to the states for highway construction and maintenance exceeded 16 billion dollars.

The CSRA includes a legislative preamble which provides: "The Congress finds and declares that wide-spread delinquency in child-support obligations has created an emergency of national scope, with substantial effects upon both human welfare and interstate commerce."

Discuss and resolve the issues of Constitutional Powers covered in this course reasonably raised by these facts. Do not discuss any issue of Federal Pre-emption, Justiciability, the Eleventh Amendment or any other jurisdictional matter.

 

QUESTION II (ONE HOUR)


The city of Scotus, Mitchell, became concerned about the shrinking supply of available land for landfill sites within the city limits for the disposal of solid and liquid waste. There are two currently operating landfill sites in Scotus - one owned and operated by the city of Scotus itself, the other owned by a private corporation. The three largest individual users of the two landfills are, in decreasing order: Aquinas Corporation, located just across the state border in the adjoining state of Ockham; Boethius Corporation, located in the state of Mitchell, but thirty miles outside the city of Scotus; and Cajetan Corporation, located in the city of Scotus itself. The rate at which these three companies have been dumping waste into each of the two Scotus landfills are: Aquinas Corporation - 100,000 pounds per week, Boethius Corporation - 75,000 pounds per week, and Cajetan Corporation - 5,000 pounds per week.

The Scotus city council took two measures. First, it directed the manager of the Scotus owned and operated landfill to refuse to accept any waste generated outside the city limits of Scotus. Second, it enacted Ordinance 72-A which provides that "no privately owned landfill within the city limits of Scotus may accept more than 5,000 pounds of waste in any single week from any one person or corporation." As a result of these two measures, considered together, neither Aquinas Corporation nor Boethius Corporation is permitted to deposit any waste in the landfill owned and operated by the city of Scotus itself, and each would be permitted to deposit only 5,000 pounds per week in a privately owned landfill.

Discuss and resolve the issues of Constitutional Powers covered in this course reasonably raised by (1) the city council's directive to the manager of the landfill owned and operated by the city of Scotus and (2) by Ordinance 72-A. Do not discuss any issue of Federal Pre-emption, Privileges and Immunities, Justiciability, the Eleventh Amendment, or any other jurisdictional matter.

Powers, Fall, 1995

Question I

CSRA, Section I

  A.    Int. Comm. Clause and N&P Clause

      1. Law

                            a.     Commerce Clause

          1. "Commerce"

          2. "Interstate"

          3. "Regulate"

          4. Fed. vs. nonfed. concerns

                            b.    N&P  Clause

          1. Applications tied to enum. concern

          2. Indis. not required

          3. Causal connection

          4. Rational basis

          5. Class basis pr.

          6. Primary objective need not be fed.

                            c.    Lopez

                    2.    Application

                            a.    Reg. means?

                            b.    Subject-matter dir.reg?

                            c.    Fed. or nonfed?

                            d.    If nonfed., what Cl. needed?

                            e.    Subject-matter of fed. objective?

                                    1)    Interstate commerce?

                                            a)    Commerce?

                                            b)    Interstate?

                                            c)    Desired reg. impact?

                                    2)    Other fed. objective?

                            f.    N&P Clause?

                                    1)    Indispensability?

                                    2)    Causal connection?

                                    3)    Rational basis?

                                    4)    Class basis?

                           g.    Primary objective issue?

                            h.    Lopez implications?

        B.    Other

CSRA, Section 2

         A.    Fed. Spending and State Immunity

                1.    Law

                        a) Hamiltonian theory: Fed. spending need only be for gen. welfare                       

          1. No jud. review of congr. judgments

                        b) Conditional strings usually upheld

          1. N&P Cl. generally available

                        c)  Conditions on money to states

          1. Conditions clearly stated
          2. Conditions reasonably related to purpose of spending
          3. Conditions not violate ind. const. prohibitions
          4. Conditions not coercive
                2.    Application

                        a.    General welfare?

                        b.    Cond. strings usually upheld?

                                1.    N&P Cl.?

                        c.     Conditions stated clearly?

                        d.    Conditions reas. rel. to purp. of sp?

                        e.    Conditions violate ind. const. proh?

                        f.    Conditions coercive?

    B.    Other

      Powers, Fall, 1995

      Question II

City Council's Directive

      A.    State Reg. of Inter. Commerce  

                1.    Affect inter. commerce?        

                2.    Market Participant?

                        a.    Law

                                1.    When state acts as mark. part. Dorm. Comm. Cl. does not apply

                                2.    Def. of market part

                                3.    Possible exceptions:

                                        a)    Nat. res.

                                        b)    Reaching beyond state's market

                        b.    Application

                                1)    Mark. part?

                                2)    Exceptions apply?

                                       a)    Nat. res?

                                        b)    Reaching beyond state's market?

                3.    Assuming for sake of argument that mark. part. exceptions does not apply, are there discrim. burdens?

                        a.    Law

                                1)    Strict scrutiny

                        b.    Application

                                1)    Discrim?

                                2)    Weight of burden?

                                3)    Objective?

                                4)    Permissible?

                                5)    Agg. local benefits?

                                6)    Balance?

                                7)    Nondiscrim. alter?

        B.    Other

Ordinance 72-A

        A.    State Regulation of Inter.Comm.
      1. Affect int. comm?

                        2.    Mark. part?

                        3.    Nondiscriminatory burdens?

                                a.    Law

          1. Upheld unless burd. on IC is clearly excessive in relation to local benefits
          2. If legit. local purpose, question is one of degree
          3. Extent of perm. burd. a function of nature of local interests and whether there are less burd. alter.
          4. Extra territorial burdens 
                                b.    Application

                                        1.    Nondiscr. burdens?

                                        2.    Weight?

                                                a)    Extraterr. burdens?

                                        3.    Objective?

                                        4.    Perm?

                                        5.    Agg. local benefits?

                                        6.    Balance?

                                                a)    Less-burd. alternatives?

                      4.    Discriminatory burdens?

                            a.    Law

                                    1.    Burden on state to justify both in terms of local benefits and unavail. of nondiscrim. alternatives

                            b.    Application

          1. Discrim?
          2. Weight?
          3. Objective?
          4. Perm?
          5. Agg. local benefits?
          6. Balance?
          7. Less-burd. alter?
                    5.    Fed. Del?

        B.    Other