A. This Is An Agreement Between The President And The Head Of Another Sovereign State

Senza categoria
  • 0
  • 8 Aprile 2021

Beginning in 1937, however, with the decision in NLRB v. Jones – Laughlin Steel Corporation,43 the Supreme Court held that Congress has the ability to protect intergovernmental trade from the pressures and obstacles that “influence” trade transactions. In the NLRB case, the Tribunal upheld the National Labor Relations Act and found that Congress, by controlling labour disputes in industry, prevented burdens from being passed on to intergovernmental trade4.44 Thus, the Court rejected previous distinctions between economic activities (such as manufacturing) that resulted in intergovernmental economic transactions and intergovernmental transactions themselves. In authorizing Congress to regulate activities that were in the “current” of trade, the Court also laid down the necessary conditions for the regulation of a multitude of other activities that “influence” trade. An executive agreement[1] is an agreement between heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature, since the treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from legally binding contracts. In Morrison, the court assessed whether 42 U.S.C Section 13981, which provides a federal private right of action for victims of gender-based violence, was the power of Congress to enact in accordance with the trade clause. Morrison`s complaint, the alleged rape victim, was against the alleged rapist because that part of the act was enduring, because it was accused of activities that significantly affected intergovernmental trade.61.61 The Court found, however, that the activity in question had nothing to do with trade or economic enterprise, contrary to the traditional trade clause statutes. This point had previously been raised in the form of Lopez, and the Court of Justice confirmed that the underlying activity itself must be of an economic or commercial nature in general, in order to fall into the acceptable category of laws that “significantly affect trade”,62 Since gender-based violence is not inherently economic activity. , the Court ruled. that it is outside the jurisdiction of Congress to regulate. A similar result occurred in the Case of the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001). In the SwanCC, the court considered a challenge to the migratory bird rule, 51 Fed. Reg. 41217, Section 404 (a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C No. 1344 a) extended to isolated non-navigable wetlands. The Court of Justice held that this interpretation of the statute would raise serious constitutional issues requiring, for example, a thorough review of the precise regulation of the activity.