To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library





    2. Congress passes a law regulating the wholesale and retail prices of “every purchase of an automobile in the United States.” The strongest argument in support of the constitutionality of such a statute is that

    (A) taken as a whole, the domestic purchases and sales of such products affect interstate commerce.

    (B) the United States Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to pass laws for the general welfare.

    (C) Congress has the authority to regulate the prices of products purchased and sold because commerce includes buying and selling.

    (D) Congress has the right to regulate interstate transportation and the importation of products from abroad. 

    Questions 3-4 are based on the following fact situation.

    A federal statute directs payment of federal funds to states for use in the improvement and expansion of state hospital facilities. The terms of the statute provide that “No state shall award a contract for hospital improvement or expansion financed in whole or in part by funds received under this section unless said contract requires that the contractor pay its employees a minimum wage of $12 per hour.” The statute also says that any private individual who is not paid $12 per hour for work on such a hospital-improvement contract can bring suit in federal court against a state receiving funds under the statute, for any shortfall below $12 in the wages received by the worker from the contractor.

    The state of Calizona contracted with Bilder for the construction of a new wing on the Calizona State Hospital, after receiving funds for that purpose under the federal statute. The contract did not require Bilder to pay its employees a minimum wage of $12 per hour.

    3. For this question, assume that upon learning the above facts, federal officials demanded that the state of Calizona either modify its contract with Bilder or return the funds received under the statute. (All federal funds for hospital expansion represent less than 1% of total state expenditures for the year in question.) When Calizona refused, the federal government sued the state of Calizona in a federal court for return of the money. In the action by the United States against the state of Calizona, the court should find for

    (A) the state of Calizona, because fixing the minimum wage of employees is a traditional state function.

    (B) the state of Calizona, because the regulation of hospitals and of construction practices are traditional state functions.

    (C) the United States, because Congress has the power to regulate the way in which federal funds are spent.

    (D) the United States, because some of the materials used in hospital construction are traded in interstate commerce.

    4. Assume for the purpose of this question that several employees of Bilder who received less than $12 per hour while working on the Calizona State Hospital expansion instituted an action for damages against the state of Calizona in a federal court, and that the state of Calizona moved to dismiss their cause of action. Which of the following is the best reason for dismissal of the suit?

    (A) The state of Calizona is immune from such an action under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    (B) No federal question is involved.

    (C) The state of Calizona did not employ the plaintiffs.

    (D) The plaintiffs voluntarily accepted the wage which Bilder paid them.

    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following