Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
  • Submissions
  • The Roundtable
  • Full Issues
  • Sponsors
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs
    • Member Portal >
      • Directory
      • Forms
      • Graphics
      • Minutes

The Roundtable

Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Boston Public Library. 

INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Congress’ Canadian Powers

1/11/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Thomas Cribbins

Thomas Cribbins is a junior at the University of Michigan studying political science.

From the very beginning, Americans have been wary of the power of the federal government. The Framers tried to hedge this concern by creating a “government of laws, not men.”. [1] The Federalist Papers echo reassurance to pre-Constitutional America by promising to protect the government from ambitious, self-interested politicians and factions. [2] In Federalist 45, Madison again addressed the fears of an almighty central government by announcing: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” [3] However, the federal government’s power has certainly expanded in the intervening centuries, particularly in the last few decades. Pushing the limits of the enumerated powers has employed many people in and outside the federal government. However, the issue stems when stretching an enumerated power cannot get the job done. What is Congress, the President or any other part of the federal government to do when the puzzle simply will not come together? This brings to the curious case of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, the Supreme Court case Missouri v. Holland (1920), and what seems to amount to the new powers the federal government assumed because they were granted by Canada.


Until 1918, states were granted almost all authority over the taking of game animals within their state.In turn, every state had radically different ideas about game management and  this dynamic generated a moral hazard with several states competing to take a larger share of game. This included inflating bag limits to prevent more southern states from being able to take a larger share of the waterfowl or other migratory birds that routinely crossed state lines. [4] Congress decided to stop the madness and protect the common-pool resource that the states all intended to desecrate. The result was the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, a treaty with Canada that granted the Secretary of the Interior the broad, redundant and superfluous powers to regulate migratory birds. The treaty was eventually signed onto by Mexico, Russia and Japan, but the point still remains: who said Congress or the federal government at large should be in charge of regulating migratory birds? [5] Who even said they should have any part at all?
The issue is not expediency, and the bigger question is, how can the federal government regulate this issue? This certainly seems like a backdoor approach to interjecting their presence. By creating a treaty around this issue, exclusively an enumerated federal power, the federal government captured another area to exercise their power. If the Constitution is only supposed to grant specific powers to the federal government and leave the rest to the states and the citizens, it would seem that this treaty would be unconstitutional.This issue came to the Supreme Court in Missouri v. Holland (1918).

Holland comes to the Supreme Court as a result of the state of Missouri suing a federal game warden to prevent him from enforcing the provisions of the treaty act. The district court dismissed the case, finding the Act constitutional and Missouri appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court found the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to be constitutional and spent the majority of the opinion rebutting the argument I posed above by declaring that treaties cannot be tested for constitutionality in the same way general acts of Congress are. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote this opinion and addresses the “Living Constitution” ideology in one of the most direct ways possible, relying on heavily abstract logic to justify the ruling. Holmes even stated that, “we are dealing with words…[that] have called into life a being.” Besides this Romantic language, the test Holmes proposed is also quite abstract, “The only question is whether it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment.” And perhaps the paramount appeal to Living Constitutionalists, “We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that Amendment has reserved.” [6] While I stated before that the question at hand was not one of expediency, Holmes uses this as the foundation of the evidence for his support. I also cannot disagree that the federal government is more suited to handling this issue, but I pause for consideration any time an important legal question rests on whether there is metaphorical “invisible radiation” or not.

It is unfortunate the decision in this case came down with such political bent. Rarely does the Supreme Court stray from a legalistic adherence these days. In my opinion, Canada essentially gave the power to Congress and the President to expand the role of the federal government through the treaty loophole, or a treaty just expediently addressing a pressing issue of the day. Conceivably, there are greater implications and precedents this case set by this case. If the Senate and the President colluded, they could indelibly alter the shape of the government. This obviously does not happen often, and perhaps that is a testament to Madison’s argument that a good government can control unbridled ambition. But at the end of the day, I’ll never think about duck hunting the same.


[1]  Massachusetts State Constitution, § 1-Article XXX (1780).
[2] Madison, James. "Federalist 10." Daily Advertiser, November 22, 1787.
[3] Madison, James. "Federalist 45." Daily Advertiser, January 26, 1788.
[4] Wilson, Randall K. "National Wildlife Refuges." In America's Public Lands: From Yellowstone to Smokey Bear and beyond, 151. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.
[5] "Migratory Bird Treaty Act." U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Migratory Bird Program | Conserving America's Birds. Accessed November 27, 2016. https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php.
[6] Missouri v. Holland (April 19, 1920).

Photo Credit: Flickr User Photo Phiend


The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    ACA
    Alana Mattei
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Anna Schwartz
    Artificial Intelligence
    Ashley Kim
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Biotechnology
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Civil Rights
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Congress
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    Data
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Environment
    EPA
    Flint
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Gun Control
    Habib Olapade
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Inequality
    Interviews
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Justin Yang
    Katie Kaufman
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Matthew Caulfield
    Megan Yan
    Michael Keshmiri
    Minimum Age
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicole Greenstein
    Obamacare
    Omar Khoury
    Opioid Crisis
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pennsylvania
    Pennsylvania Law
    Pharmaceuticals
    Philadelphia Law
    Presidential Powers
    Public Education
    Public Heatlh
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Renewable Energy
    Sam Nadler
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Second Amendment
    Shannon Alvino
    Siddarth Sethi
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Sue And Settle
    Supreme Court
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Technology
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Transgender Rights
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Unfiled
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly
✕