翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States v. Behrman
・ United States v. Bell Tel. Co.
・ United States v. Belmont
・ United States v. Bestfoods
・ United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind
・ United States v. Binion
・ United States v. Booker
・ United States v. Bormes
・ United States v. Brechner
・ United States v. Brewster
・ United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
・ United States v. Burton
・ United States v. Butler
・ United States v. Camacho
・ United States v. Carmack
United States v. Carolene Products Co.
・ United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
・ United States v. Causby
・ United States v. Chadwick
・ United States v. Choi
・ United States v. City of Portland
・ United States v. Clark
・ United States v. Classic
・ United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co.
・ United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co.
・ United States v. Colgate & Co.
・ United States v. Comstock
・ United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations
・ United States v. Constantine
・ United States v. Continental Can Co.


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v. Carolene Products Co. : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v. Carolene Products Co.

''United States v. Carolene Products Company'', 304 U.S. 144 (1938), was an April 25, 1938 decision by the United States Supreme Court. The case is best known for its famous "Footnote Four", in which the Court established the system of heightened scrutiny for laws targeting "discrete and insular minorities", compared with the lower scrutiny applied in this case for economic regulations.
== Overview ==
The case dealt with a federal law that prohibited filled milk (skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat, so as to resemble milk or cream) from being shipped in interstate commerce. The defendant argued that the law was unconstitutional on both Commerce Clause and due process grounds.
The previous term, the Court had dramatically enlarged the activities considered to be in, or affect, interstate commerce. It had also altered its settled jurisprudence in the area of substantive due process, the doctrine dealing with rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. These changes meant that many New Deal programs that the Court would previously have struck down as unconstitutional would henceforth be found constitutional.
The defendant company charged with breaking the law described above at trial filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted the defendant's motion, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling.
Justice Harlan Stone, writing for the Court, held that the law was "presumptively constitutional" properly within legislative discretion, and hence was not for the courts to overrule because it was supported by substantial public-health evidence, and was not arbitrary or irrational. In other words, the Court applied a "rational basis" test.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v. Carolene Products Co.」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.