If Congress passes a law requiring everyone to wear a mask when they enter any type of business (including governmental businesses and NON-governmental businesses like retail stores, restaurants, or an office building), do you think Congress could rely on the Commerce Clause as their authority for passing the law? Or, do you think the law would be unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.

In answering this question, explain why or why not Congress can use the Commerce Clause for the mandatory mask law after considering:

1. Early Commerce Clause Cases, From the New Deal to the New Frontier and the Great Society:1930s 1970 and The Substantial Effects Doctrine: World War II to the 1990s including the Compassionate Use Act.

2. reading the constitution of the law, federal preemption, the commerce clause act, and Affordable Care Act.

Note there is no right / wrong answer in terms of whether Congress has the power to enact a mandatory mask law - so "pick a side" and argue your point!

C X 4.1 Commerce Cl. x * Course Hero X Hi Week #3 / Modul x Bly Business_Law L E X Ely Business Law a -fleet02-xythos.content.blackboardcdn.com/609f3985beb5e/2227206?X-Blackboard-Expiration=1663632000... + AD | DIV Chapter 4 Business and the United States Constitution The Constitution and the Law Federal and state constitutions are a major source of business law. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. In addition to the individual constitutions established in each state, the U.S. Constitution sets out the fundamental rules and principles by which the country and individual states are governed. Constitutional law is the term used to describe the powers and limits of the federal and state governments as established in the Constitution. The political system that divides authority to govern between the state and federal governments is known as federalism, and this too is established in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states that any area over which the federal government is not granted authority through the Constitution is reserved for the state. This statement means that any federal legislation impacting business and commerce must be established by an expressed constitutional grant of authority. Federal Preemption The Founding Fathers created a federal system that would, at times, "preempt" state law through the supremacy clause, outlined in Article VI of the Constitution. In other words, since the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," if a state law conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, the state law is declared invalid. When the federal constitutional law prevails over the state law, it is said that the state law has been preempted. Before that determination is made, the courts try to determine if Congress intended to preempt state law in enacting the particular provision in question. If the answer is "no, " then those who are asserting protections of state law may make claims under state law. If the answer is "yes," however, federal law prevails. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the states powers over areas of law not held exclusively by the federal government through the U.S. Constitution, e.g., states can make laws about how to get married, who may get married, or how to dissolve a marriage, as well as which activities are crimes and how the crimes will be punished. If the U.S. Constitution does give the federal government some power, however, then the federal government may exercise it, free from state interference. For instance, the U.S. Congress (the legislative branch of the federal government) has the power. among other things, to coin money, to create a military, to establish post offices, and to declare war. Since there is specific mention of these powers, states may not create their own currency, military, or postal service, and they may not declare war. The Commerce Clause and The Affordable Care ActItion c X 4.1 Commerce Cl. X *| Course Hero X Hi Week #3 / Modul x Bb Business_Law_|_E: X El Business prod-fleet02-xythos.content.blackboardcdn.com/609f3985beb5e/2227206?X-Blackboard-Expiration=1663632000.. @ DV The Commerce Clause and The Affordable Care Act After much debate, negotiation, and political wrangling, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010, which was designed to increase the number of Americans who had access to health insurance (a policy initiative known as Obamacare). The Act included a provision mandating that individuals not insured through employment or who were otherwise exempt from receiving health insurance obtain minimum essential health insurance or face a penalty issued through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), supported by 26 of the 50 states, challenged the constitutionality of this particular provision, known as the individual mandate. Their argument was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that Congress did not have the authority to enact this provision. Later, however, the appellate court determined that the individual mandate was severable from the remainder of the PPACA, so ultimately the Act was upheld. The main source of authority for the federal regulation of interstate and international commerce is the commerce clause. This clause is established in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. The Article grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Thus, the commerce clause serves to simultaneously empower the federal government, while This Openstax beck 's available for free Chapter 4 Business and the United States Constitution limiting state power. So long as a federal regulation impacts interstate commerce, that regulation can be described as constitutional, according to the commerce clause. However, since the Constitution was first written. there have often been occasions when the judiciary system has needed to step into interpret the meaning and implications of the commerce clause. In particular, there have been disputes over the intended meaning of the phrase " among the several States." Up until the 1930s, this phrase was interpreted in a literal way. so that activities subject to federal regulation were required to involve trade between the sees thesong interpretation actually served to limit the federal regulation of commerce OLDEC X - 4.1 Commerce Cl x Course Hero X Hi Week #3 / Modul > Business_Law_LE: X d-fleet02-xythos.content.blackboardcdn.com/609f3985beb5e/2227206?X-Blackboard-Expiration=1663632000... @ A DV Y Chapter 4 Business United States Constitution limiting state power. So long as a federal regulation impacts interstate commerce, that regulation can be described as constitutional, according to the commerce clause. However, since the Constitution was first written, there have often been occasions when the judiciary system has needed to step in to interpret the meaning and implications of the commerce clause. In particular, there have been disputes over the intended meaning of the phrase "among the several States." Up until the 1930s, this phrase was interpreted in a literal way, so that activities subject to federal regulation were required to involve trade between the states. This strict interpretation actually served to limit the federal regulation of commerce. The turning point in the interpretation of the commerce clause came with the 1937 case, NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. The previous year, in the Carter v. Carter Coal Co case, the court invalidated a program, initiated under the New Deal, that had tried to regulate the labor practices of coal firms on the basis that these practices were local, and therefore had only an indirect impact on interstate commerce. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, the court deviated from that decision by ruling that Congress could regulate employment practices at a steel plant because any stoppages at that plant would have a serious, detrimental impact on interstate commerce. The court concluded that since the steel industry is a networked industry that incorporates mines, plants, and factories from Minnesota to Pennsylvania, the manufacturing of steel properly falls under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause. In summing up, the court concluded that: EXAMPLE 4 Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relationship to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens or obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control" NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 1937) to and Reinterpretations of the Commerce Clause O L D