Role and Functions of Law - Research Paper Example

The Commerce Clause gives the broad ity to the Congress to have the power to “regulate Commerce among the several s.” Despite the limits being given by the United States Supreme Court to Congress, they still exercise their power to regulate interstate commerce as long as they can. Taking into consideration the case of Cipollone vs Liggett Group, Inc. (1992), Congress' power to pre-empt is considered to be broad as long as it is aligned with the source of its authority, the Supreme Law. If the Congress exercises its Commerce powers such as its preemptive powers without interrupting an existing federal law, then their powers and laws are binding.

The ruling in the case of Cipollone vs Liggett Group, Inc. (1992), states that the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land" which as the supreme law, it will bind all other laws in any state. Thus it is clear under the Supremacy Law that any state law or regulations in conflict with the Federal law or the law of the land is without power and effect. The facts include that in section 4 of the 1965 Act or Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act it was clearly stated that it required a very clear warning of smoking health hazards to be placed in every package of cigarettes in the country.

However, § 5 of that Act, captioned "Preemption," provided: "(a) No statement relating to smoking and health, other than the [§ 4] statement . . . , shall be required on any cigarette package," and "(b) No [such] statement . . . shall be required in the advertising of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with" (Cipollone vs Liggett Group Inc, 1992). However, this controversial Section 5(b) was now amended by the 1969 Act or Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 which clearly discussed "No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are [lawfully] labeled (Cipollone vs Liggett Group Inc, 1992).

The court ruled that preemptive clause in the federal statute bars the law claims since it is the supreme law. 2. In the case cited, the Supreme Court held, therefore, that the 1969 Act preemptive clause states that the Plaintiff’s claims such as there was failure to warn the consumers as to the bad effects of smoking in their advertisement and promotions has no claim based on the federal law. It was clearly stated that “No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising and promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this Act" (Cipollone vs Liggett Group, Inc.,1992). However, this ruling does not bar any resident or any state to file a suit against a tobacco company for false advertising or promotion.

The Act of 1969 does not prevent any person to file a case against false advertising or fraud. Because the law clearly stated that advertising and promotions can be left alone considering they are in conformity with the law, if they create false advertising, it is already considered fraud and is not protected by the law anymore. According to the decision of the Supreme Court, "e) Petitioner's claim alleging a conspiracy among respondents to misrepresent or conceal material facts concerning smoking's health hazards is not pre-empted, since the predicate duty not to conspire to commit fraud that underlies that claim is not a prohibition "based on smoking and health" as that § 5(b) phrase is properly construed. P. 23.

" (Cipollone vs Liggett Group, Inc.,1992). 3. The Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 (1969 Act) clearly required cigarette packages to contain a warning that the surgeon general has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to one’s health and banned cigarette advertising from electronic communication mediums subject to the FCC’s jurisdiction (Cipollone vs Liggett Group, Inc.,1992) . What should also be taken into consideration is the preemptive provision that stated, “No requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising and promotion of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this Act" (Cipollone vs Liggett Group, Inc.,1992). The preemption clause conspicuously ensures that advertising and promotion of product which are in accordance to the federal statute must be left alone as long as they are in conformity with the law.

Therefore, the state gives the authority to the manufacturers to promote their products as long as what has been required by the law are properly observed. In this case, it can be said that commerce is free but still under law or several regulations. Reference: Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.,et al., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)