1. Many states prohibit their lottery tickets from being sold out of the state, so Pic-A-State would have it agent buy lottery tickets in various states and hold them there; someone in Pennsylvania would buy a claim on the tickets held in the other states. Congress passed a law prohibiting interstate transmission of lottery ticket information to be used for lottery ticket sales. Pic-A-State, which was being put out of business, challenged the law as unconstitutional. Was this correct? Pic-A-State Inc. s challenge stating that the law Congress passed prohibiting interstate transmission of lottery ticket information to be used for lottery ticket sale was unconstitutional is not correct. As per out text, the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall have Power… To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and amount the several states… ” Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce that includes transmission of information by computer for purchasing lottery tickets.
Although Pic-A-State did not transport actual lottery tickets across state lines, but only sold interest in lottery tickets via computer, their activity may still be regulated by Congress. Congress has acted under their constitutional exercise and power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. This law has protected the state lottery revenues, and preserving state sovereignty in the regulation of lotteries and interstate gambling.
2. Plaistow, New Hampshire, passed an ordinance prohibiting truck traffic during late-night hours at a truck terminal loading and unloading facility.
It did so to reduce noise and fumes for the benefit of town residents. The truck terminal had been in operation several years. Most of the trucks came five miles from an interstate highway to change loads. The truckers contested the regulation as a restriction on interstate commerce and maintained that regulating an area (interstate trucking) subject to federal regulations was illegal. Were the truckers right? I believe that the truckers were correct, stating that the regulation was a restriction on interstate commerce. As a person, I can understand the importance of regulating and restricting noise and fumes for the town residents.
However, this terminal had been in operation for several years and poses a very important role for truckers as it allows them to pick up and drop of loads of many different products that need to be received in a timely manner by their purchasers. By regulating and restricting the operating hours of these truckers, they were imposing burden on interstate commerce. Only Congress can burden interstate commerce, and since Plaistow, New Hampshire as a state did not get approval from congress, this would be an unconstitutional regulation that imposes on interstate commerce.
3. The state of Iowa has a statute limiting to 55 feet the length of trucks on it highways. This made it illegal for commonly use double-trailer trucks 65 feet long to use Iowa highways. The shippers had to either use shorter truckers or go around the state. Iowa justified the regulation on the basis of safety on the highways, and because the bigger trucks caused more damage to it highways. Was this regulation constitutional? No, this regulation is not constitutional Iowa’s law substantially burdens interstate commerce as it uses regulations out of step with all of its neighboring State’s regulations.
Moreover, Iowa discriminates against out-of-state interests by providing Iowan’s exemptions that are not extended to out-of-state interests. The safety benefits are not enough to be greater than the national interest in keeping interstate commerce free from interference, and this regulation was completely hindering the interstate commerce.
11. A church owned land in a rural area that it used as a recreation area for disabled children. A fire in the area-destroyed vegetation, allowing flooding to occur. To protect public safety, the county adopted an ordinance prohibiting any new building in the area until it determined what to do.
The church requested to rebuild was denied for six years while the county pondered what the building code, if any, should be for the area. The church sued for loss of use of the land. Could it recover under the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment? Yes, the church can recover it loss. The Fifth Amendment provides that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. ” The Fifth Amendment does not prevent the government from taking property from private individuals, but does require that just compensation be paid.