The Legislative Power of the US Congress - Case Study Example

The Legislative Power of the US CongressA The Legislative Power of the US Congress is laid down in s 8 of Article 1 of the US Constitution. The section enumerates about 17 specific legislative powers and one implied power. The powers enumerated are characterized by their nationwide general applicability, to wit: duties, taxes, imposts, excises; borrowing of money in the name of the US; regulation of commerce; naturalization and laws on bankruptcy; counterfeiting of US coins and securities; post offices and post roads; promotion of arts and sciences; court tribunals’ constitution; piracies and felonies in the high seas, offenses against the law of nations; declaration of war; raising of army and navy; government rules and regulations; call of the militia; regulation of the militia, and; regulation of ceded territories.

The implied power of legislating laws to further the enumerated powers is also added. On the other hand, section 10 of the same article provides for the limitations of the legislative powers of the state legislatures (US Constitution). From the above enumeration, it is clear that the federal enactment regarding the Minnesota bird is not valid because it is not within the ambit of the enumerated or implied powers of Congress and it, in effect, interferes with the prerogative of the Minnesota legislature to enact laws concerning their own welfare.

On the other hand, the Missouri statute regarding the transport of radioactive materials is also not valid because the transport of radioactive materials concerns US security issues which the federal government (and therefore Congress) has jurisdiction over with. As a matter of fact, it is the Department of Transportation which is delegated with the power to establish the guidelines for the packaging, limits of radioactivity and exposure limits of radioactive materials (Saha 293). Finally, the Missouri statute which imposes a pre-requisite of two-week counseling for marriage licenses issuance is valid because it is not in conflict with congressional legislative powers, current federal laws or is prohibited under s 10 of the US Constitution.

Since the said statutes are assailed for their unconstitutionality, the federal courts should have proper jurisdiction over the first case because it federal enactment, while the second case should be brought before the Missouri Supreme Court subject to review by the federal courts (Article 3, US Constitution). However, cases are not yet ripe for court determination because there is no actual legal dispute yet which concerns them (The Jurisdiction of Federal Courts).B Ralph may file his case either in a Colorado federal district court or in a Colorado state court, since both have concurrent jurisdiction over diversity cases or cases in which the litigants are citizens of different states.

He is a citizen of the state of Colorado and Drug-Free Enterprises is incorporated in Nevada with principal office in California (which can both be the basis of its citizenship [Jennings 89]) qualifying the case as a diversity case. Federal courts have authority to hear diversity cases if the amount involves more than $75,000. The basis for the federal jurisdiction can be found in Section 2 of Article III of the United States Constitution which states, among others, that federal courts have jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states and the basis for the state jurisdiction is that Ralph is a citizen of the state and the case involves a subject not within the exclusive or implied jurisdiction of the federal courts.

However, under the case Erie Railroad Co v Tompkins, 304 US 64 (1938), federal courts have to apply state laws (where the federal court may be found) in the determination of diversity cases. According to s1 of Art IV of the Constitution, the judicial proceedings, among others, of a state shall be given full faith and credit in another state, but this does not mean that an out-of-state judgment is automatically enforceable in the other state because a state court’s jurisdiction is limited only within the state’s territory.

Enforceability of an out-of-state judgment depends on the conflict laws of a state. In California, for example, the judgment creditor of an out-of-state needs to obtain entry for a Sister State Money Judgment by going through the domestication procedure initiated by the filing of an entry of judgment. An out-of-state federal decision however, merely requires registration. According to Brown, out-of-court federal decisions in general, need to be registered in the state where the judgment creditor wants the judgment to be enforced (as when the judgment debtor has properties there) in accordance with 28 USC § 1963, so that the judgment can also be validly enforced in that jurisdiction (Brown 12-7; 1-25, 26).

Works Cited Brown, Joseph. Judgment Enforcement, illustrated. Aspen Publishers Online, 1995.Jennings, Marianne. Business: Its Legal, ethical, and Global Environment, edition7, illustrated. Cengage Learning, 2005Saha, Gopal. Physics and Radiobiology of Nuclear Medicine. Edition3, illustrated. Springer, 2006. The Jurisdiction of Federal Courts. Understanding the Federal Courts. http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_4_0.htmlUS Constitution.Writ of Execution. United States Marshall Service.

http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/process/execution-writ.htm