No Marshmallows, Just Term Papers
Week 2 Discussion Questions
Question No. 1:
State of MN banned the sale of milk in plastic, nonreturnable/refillable containers, but permitted them in paperboard milk cartons.
Please study the problem found in eBook Chapter 5, Problem 7, and answer the following questions:
On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, 1. Can the statute survive a constitutional challenge?
2. Is there a "rational basis" for the statute?
3. What effect does the evidence to the contrary have on the statute's constitutionality?We will also read and discuss Chapter 5 Problem 8 in this thread. |
I do believe the statute can survive a constitutional challenge because the Commerce Clause allows Congress only to regulate interstate commerce; the regulation of milk sales in only paperboard cartons is Minnesota intrastate commerce, which is left to the states for regulation.
The state’s purpose to pass the statute was to “control waste” and “take up [less] space in solid waste disposal dumps”; however, the Minnesota Supreme Court found that the plastic bottles take up “less space and required less energy to produce” than paperboard milk cartons, so there is no rational basis for this statute.
The statute was an example of the state of Minnesota’s police power to pass laws to promote public welfare and health; however the contrary evidence effects the statute’s constitutionality by putting into question the constitutional protection. The public health benefit involved with this state statute is negated because the evidence exposes the controversial issue between the state of Minnesota choosing paper board milk cartons instead of plastic jugs because the plastic jugs take up less space and require less energy to produce.
This week, we shall cover Administrative and International Law in an interesting process. This thread will travel overseas and throughout the U.S.! Please read and study Problem 5, Chapter 6, regarding circus regulation. Is too much...