Question

Congress has passed a law that prohibits shipment across state lines of lager, licorice, and lawn furniture produced by left-handed Americans of Lithuanian descent. Congress feels that employers in these particular industries had historically discriminated against this subgroup of the population. Members believe that they could pass such legislation based on a power that could be implied from various enumerated powers (e.g., the powers to lay and collect taxes, to borrow money, and to regulate commerce among the several states).
The state of Missouri disagrees, arguing that such legislation may be appropriate to remedy discrimination against federal employees, but it does not pertain to the states. In its view, this is not an issue involving interstate commerce but rather solely an attempt by the government to interfere with intrastate commercea thinly veiled attempt by Congress to impose its own moral views on the state.
How would Chief Justice Marshall decide this case? Whose argument would he support? How might his view on this case differ from that of Chief Justice Taney? How would Taney decide the case? The question presented here is not asking whether the law is constitutional per se; rather, it is requesting that you evaluate and analyze the approaches Marshall and Taney would take in their opinions. If you were a justice on the Court, whose approach would you support? Marshall's? Taney's? Neither justice's?

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 68 characters.