Supreme Court Case Study 32

1. U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, §8, cl. 3.

2. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010)

3. Rosenbaum S. A. “broader regulatory scheme”—the constitutionality of health care reform. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1881–3.[PubMed]

4. Mariner WK, Annas GJ, Glantz LH. Can Congress make you buy broccoli? And why that's a hard question. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:201–3.[PubMed]

5. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

6. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §331(k) (1938)

7. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972)

8. Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§201–219 (1938)

9. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)

10. Chemerinsky E. Constitutional law: principles and policies. 2nd ed. New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc.; 2002.

11. Sullivan KM, Gunther G. Constitutional law. 14th ed. New York: Foundation Press; 2001.

12. A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)

13. N.L.R.B. v. Jones – Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937)

14. Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), overturned by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)

15. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

16. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

17. Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4789.

18. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558–559 (1995)

19. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561.

20. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 564.

21. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 566.

22. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. §13981 et seq. (1994)

23. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 at 628 (2000) (Souter J, dissenting)

24. Strebeigh F. Equal: women reshape American law. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.; 2009.

25. Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic and State University, 935 F.Supp. 779 (W.D. Va. 1996)

26. Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic and State University, 169 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1999)

27. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 609-610.

28. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618.

29. California Health – Safety Code §11362.5 et seq. (1996)

30. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)

31. Eule JN. Laying the dormant Commerce Clause to rest. Yale Law J. 1982;91:425–85.

32. Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin, 340 U.S. 349 (1951)

33. Chemical Waste Management v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334 (1992)

34. Rosenbaum S, Gruber J. Buying health care, the individual mandate, and the Constitution. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:401–3.[PubMed]

35. Liberty University, Inc. v. Geithner, 2010 WL 4860299 (W.D. Va. 2010)

36. Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 720 F.Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Mich. 2010)

37. Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 702 F.Supp. 2d 598 (E.D. Va. 2010)

38. Florida ex rel. McCollum v. U.S. Dep't of Health – Human Services, 716 F.Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Fla. 2010)

39. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 at 43 (O'Connor J, dissenting)

40. Claybrook J, Bollier D. The hidden benefits of regulation: disclosing the auto safety payoff. Yale J Regulation. 1985;3:87–131.

41. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury (US) Tobacco: federal excise tax increase and related provisions. [cited 2011 Mar 7]. Available from: URL: http://www.ttb.gov/main_pages/schip-summary.shtml.

В феврале того года, когда Энсею исполнилось двенадцать, его приемным родителям позвонили из токийской фирмы, производящей компьютеры, и предложили их сыну-калеке принять участие в испытаниях новой клавиатуры, которую фирма сконструировала для детей с физическими недостатками.

Родители согласились. Хотя Энсей Танкадо никогда прежде не видел компьютера, он как будто инстинктивно знал, как с ним обращаться.

0 Replies to “Supreme Court Case Study 32”

Lascia un Commento

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *