1. Failure of Articles of Confederation

2. Prevent conflicts among states

3. Avoid war with foreign countries

4. Promote trade among states and foreign nations

1. Favored strong central government with power allotted to states in proportion to population. 

2. Favored large states

1. Closer to current Articles of Confederation.

2. Power allotted based on principle that every state is independent and a sovereign entity with one vote.

Big States versus Small States

-Smaller states were concerned that the larger states would have an advantage over them because of their slave population. 

Slave States versus Free States

-Slave states were concerned that free states would abolish slavery which was a major source of wealth for the southern states.

-Free Northern states want to prevent the spread of slavery.

1. No power of direct taxation

2. No power to raise army

3. no president

4. No national judiciary

5. Massive printing of paper money caused money to loose value

Aristotle spoke on various forms of government

1. Government by one--Monarchy--develops into tyranny over time.

2. Government by the few--Aristocracy--denegrates in an Oligarchy

3. Government by the many--Polity--becomes democracy

4. Mob Rule--everyone for themselves evolves into a Monarchy

Over time, one form of government begins good, but becomes corrupt over time. There is no long term gov't strategy than can govern over time effectively without growing cancerous and corrupt.

The goal of the constitution was to incorporate multiple forms of government as a system of checks and balances.

1. Monarchy--President

2. Aristocracy--Congress

3. Democracy--The People

John Locke--Second treatise on government.

Government exists to protect life, liberty and property. Everyone has a natural right to their own bodies. We enter into a social contract to protect our natural rights with the rulers to govern and protect our natural rights. We agree to limit our freedom by not killing etc., Consequently, the gov't can prevent people from killing one another or punish for killing afterwards. The people have a right of revolution when the social contract is breached.

"By mixing your labor into something--it makes it your own."

Montesquieu wrote that French society was divided into the 'trias politica': the monarchy, the aristocracy and the commons. He stated that two types of government existed: the sovereign and the administrative. He believed that the administrative powers were divided into the executive, the judicial and the legislative.

Natural Law is dictated by God!

Due process of law and opposition to arbitrary  punishment. Jury by your peers.

Article 2

Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict. Thus, a federal court may require a state to stop certain behavior it believes interferes with, or is in conflict with, federal law.

1. Express

2. Implied

3. Field

4. Obstacle

5. Conflict

1) Express Preemption-

Congress expressly states that a federal law (a valid law that is not beyond the constitutional power of Congress) intends to preempt certain types of state legislation.  Even if the statute contains express preemptive language, there may still be an issue as to the scope of the preemption that Congress intends.  In addition to expressly stating an intent to preempt, Congress can also expressly state that it does not intend to preempt certain types of state legislation.

1. Conflict

2. Field

Conflict preemption-

(a) a state law is in conflict with a federal law because it is impossible to comply with both at the same time (physical impossibility); or
(b) a state law is in conflict with a federal law because it interferes with the objectives of the federal law or is an obstacle to the accomplishment of the federal purpose.  To determine whether this type of implied preemption exists, it is necessary to determine the purpose of the federal law and how that purpose is impacted by the operation of the state law.  

Field preemption-

the federal government has fully occupied the field it has chosen to regulate.
To demonstrate that field preemption exists, the challenger must show that Congress intended to fully occupy a field and leave no room for even supplemental state regulation. When the Court is uncertain as to whether Congress intended to preempt the field, it will look at the nature of the regulated area. If the area regulated by Congress is an area in which the federal interest is dominant, the Court will be more inclined to presume that Congress intended to occupy the field (as in the areas of immigration or foreign affairs). If the area regulated by Congress is an area that has traditionally been regulated by the states (as in the area of regulating electrical utilities), the Court will be less likely to presume that Congress intended to occupy the field and may require that Congress make its intent to preempt clear and manifest.  Even if field preemption exists, there may still be a dispute as to the scope of the field that Congress intends to preempt.

Obstacle Preemption-

In addition, even in the absence of a direct conflict between state and federal law, a conflict exists if the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

1. Article 2 of Articles of Confederation-state sovereignty-each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence- this was the opposite of the necessary and proper clause.

2. The government had to make requisitions to the states to send troops money etc.. The states would typically not comply confederation Federalist lobby for stronger government. 

3. there were two major issues at the Constitutional convention. Slave states versus free states and small states versus larger states. Most of the large states will slave states hence the compromise was to count slaves as 3/5 of a person. 

4. the resolution between big states of small states was a bicameral Congress. Population will be used for representation and taxation. the House of Representatives we'll be based on population. The Senate would have equal representation with two Senators from every state. Every state will be guaranteed at least three seats and elect oral college and in Congress. 

5. anti-Federalist argued for adoption of the Bill of Rights.

6. Federalists wanted to protect liberty by structuring a strong government no Bill of Rights. 

7. federalist wanted to protect liberty by two means- having three branches of government with enumerated powers.

8. anti-Federalist wanted Bill of Rights which is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. 

1. sedition laws

2. quasi-war with France

3. continue hostilities with Britain war of 1812.

1. as slaves escape to Freestate United States Supreme Court mandated the return of slaves to owners it adopted a proslavery interpretation of the Constitution.

2. commerce is developing

3. can the government create a national Bank- Mulloch versus Maryland

4. article one section 8-necessary and proper clause let's congress passed any legislation that will allow them to achieve goals. Was a very broad and aggressive interpretation of the necessary and proper clause. 

5. chief Justice John Marshall-this is the birth of judicial review with the case of Marbury versus Madison.

6. 

Under article 3 section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority;-

1. all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls

2. to all cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction.

3. to controversies to which United States shall be a party

    a. controversies between two or more states

    b. controversies between the state and citizens of                             another state

    c. controversies between citizens of different states

    d. controversies between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states

    e. controversies between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign state citizens or subjects

In all cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls and those in which a State shall be a party Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

In all other cases before mentioned the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both asked to law and fact with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make..

1. the Missouri compromise–The extraordinarily bitter debate over Missouri’s application for admission ran from December 1819 to March 1820. Northerners, led by Senator Rufus King of New York, argued that Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in a new state. Southerners like Senator William Pinkney of Maryland held that new states had the same freedom of action as the original thirteen and were thus free to choose slavery if they wished. After the Senate and the House passed different bills and deadlock threatened, a compromise bill was worked out with the following provisions: (1) Missouri was admitted as a slave state and Maine (formerly part of Massachusetts) as free, and (2) except for Missouri, slavery was to be excluded from the Louisiana Purchase lands north of latitude 36°30′.

DRED SCOTT VS. SANDFORD. DRED SCOTT was a slave of an army surgeon, John Emerson. Scott had been taken from Missouri to posts in Illinois and what is now Minnesota for several years in the 1830s, before returning to Missouri. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had declared the area including MINNESOTA free. In 1846, Scott sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived in a free state and a free territory for a prolonged period of time. Finally, after eleven years, his case reached the Supreme Court. At stake were answers to critical questions, including slavery in the territories and citizenship of African-Americans. The verdict was a bombshell.

• The Court ruled that Scott's "sojourn" of two years to Illinois and the Northwest Territory did not make him free once he returned to Missouri.
• The Court further ruled that as a black man Scott was excluded from United States citizenship and could not, therefore, bring suit. According to the opinion of the Court, African-Americans had not been part of the "SOVEREIGN PEOPLE" who made the Constitution.
• The Court also ruled that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory. Any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited denying property rights without due process of law.
• The Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional.

There were questions about the executive power. 

Abraham Lincoln said several precedents.

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

Does the president have a duty to violate the Constitution to maintain order in keep the country together. Maybe. 

Emancipation proclamation–military measure which freed slaves that were in areas of rebellion sometimes state-by-state sometimes county by county.

1. Congress can authorize the president to carry out something. This is the maximum power that the federal government can bring to bear. Full authority of the executory and legislative power this is the height of the presidents power.

2. if Congress is silent–President is acting on his own authority. Case-by-case basis. Constitutional twilight zone. Middle zone. Article 2 powers.

3. if the president is acting contrary to congresses mandate or ignoring in order of Congress –this is an example of the president trying to overpower or tromp the legislative (Congress) this is the president acting at a minimum level of presidential power. Youngstown sheet and tube company V Sawyer is an example of this when the president decided to take over the steel mills. The president's executive order was deemed unconstitutional in Youngstown.

"the vesting clause"–section 1 of articles one two and three–each branch of government is vested with the different power. Montesquieu.

Article one section 1 – legislative powers here in granted there is a limit to what power is being granted to Congress.

Article one investing clause is different from other vesting clauses.

Congress can only execute powers granted to somewhere else in the Constitution.

Article one section 1 addresses large states versus small states controversy faced by the framers of the Constitution.

In the 1790s there was no such thing as voting for Senate tour. Senators were appointed by the state legislative bodies.

Therefore the legislative body was structured as a bicameral one

Except for the state of Nebraska which only has one house.

Southern states at 17 seats in Congress just based on the sleep populations by the time of the Civil War.

Southern states wanted to count slaves for the purpose of gaining representation in the federal government. 

Solution #1

The framers connected population with representation in the federal government and direct taxes.

Slave owners will be taxed based on their slaves. This balances out the desire of the southern states to increase their slavery numbers to increase power in the federal government. Slaves do not pay taxes, so this meant that slave owners had to pay for increasing their slave populations.

Solution #2

The 3/5 rule–this limited the power of the southern states and the federal government. The southern states wanted to count their slaves as a whole person. The 3/5 rule was a method of the free states to keep slavery in check. The 3/5 compromise.

House of Representatives canopy's president they have the power of removal from office.

The Senate tries the impeachment.

Chief Justice presides at the president is being tried.

Impeachment can lead to removal from office and being banned from holding future office.

Only judges and presidents can be impeached.

Speech and debate clause-no member of Congress can be call to answer for what they say during the course of caring out their duties in any legislative acts while on the floor of Congress. they are immune from arrests as long as they are:

1. on the floor of Congress  

2. in a congressional hearing

3. drafting legislation

Immunity also applies to staffers

The legislative process

All bills for raising revenue must originate in the house.

Hey Bill must be passed by both houses and it goes to the president for approval, denial, signature, veto, nothing

If the bill's veto than the bill must get two thirds vote from both houses to become a law

If the president does nothing in general the bill will become a law within 10 days except for Sundays

With the exception if the Congressional session ends within the 10 ten day period and then bill dies.

Bicameralism is necessary for any legislative act that Congress does an presentment to the president is required as well.

Lays out most of the powers of Congress with a few exceptions.

Congress shall have the power to:

1. spending clause or general welfare clause –two lay and collect taxes To provide for the general welfare. Duties must be uniform Congress cannot force states to do anything but they can bribe states by offering enough money

2. borrow money

3. Commerce clause –can regulate commerce with foreign countries Indian tribes and interstate commerce.

4. establish rules for naturalization and bankruptcies

5. regulate the value of coins and establish weights and measures. 

6. punish counterfeiting

7. establish post offices

8. Grant copyrights

9. create lower federal courts only mandatory federal court is US Supreme Court. It is not required to have lower federal courts it is a right of Congress judiciary act of 1789.

10. Punish piracy Law of Nations violations.

11. Declare war grant letters of marquee create rules of capture

12. Raise armies with appropriations of less than two years.

13. Create a navy

14. Enact rules to govern the military

15. Provide for calling the militia to execute federal laws suppress insurrection and repel invasion

16. Organize the militia

17. Congress has the power to govern the District of Columbia and other federal lands and buildings.

18. Necessary and proper clause- Congress shall have the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution.

The necessary and proper clause will never be the answer to any question. It will always be in conjunction with another clause. For example the Congress has the power to establish a post office so it is necessary for Congress to make a loss to create a stamps postal workers uniforms postage rates etc.

Congress show may have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for a carrying  into execution.

The necessary and proper clause will never be the answer to any question

It will always be in conjunction with another clause

For example, The Congress has the power to establish post offices so it is necessary for Congress to make laws to create stamps, postal workers, uniforms, postage rates etc.

Clause bound textualism looks at what the language would be deemed to mean at the time and the specific clause in which it was used.

It would ask what would this text have meant to someone was reading the law at that time

Originalism-token based

Tolkan based originalism- if you have a clause that you need to understand, go back to the original debates of the time. Ignore any changes in interpretation that may have occurred from the time that the Constitution was written.

Opposing view–this theory does not allow for moral growth

Supporting view –who says that society gets better overtime. We at least have a minimum standard to uphold the agnostic view. 

Type based originalism-looks at what the principal was that the framers were looking to capture.

We can be faithful to the Constitution by hearing to the principle that the framers were trying to capture for example 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment.

Brown versus Board of Education posed a significant threat to originalism

Equal protection clause– Frame receipt to preserve equal rights for all. Separate but equal was the thought of civil rights activist of the day when the Constitution was written

.

Racially quality was thought to be possible in a segregated society

Does not focus on anyone meaning of a clause. It looks at the three branches and the structure on the whole. This theory does not work in all circumstances. Based on the structure what can we gather based on the structure.

Structuralism leave states free to determine their own legislative processes based on the majority opinion of Arizona state legislature the Arizona independent redistricting Commission.

Utilitarianism- there is no right answer. Majority opinion's and dissents are both considered valid.

The desired outcome is determined and then an opinion is written to support the desired outcome.

Works backwards.

Majority opinion in the Arizona case thinks that the Independent redistricting commissions are awesome.

Many of the constitutions parts are conservative in the sense that they want to maintain or preserve the status quo. This system in structured against structural changes.

Critical legal theory is about protecting the have against the have-nots and not changing the status quo. We don't have any commitments to maintaining protection for have-nots

Shelly versus Cramer is an example of critical legal theory.

The left-wing are the legal realists

The right wing are textualists and or originalists.

1. legislative supremacy-the act of enacting a statute is an act of constitutional interpretation. April's representative should be bound by the people to interpret under this notion. No current law will be considered unconstitutional under this theory.

2. departmentalism-supreme Court does not think that we have this. Every branch of government has power to interpret Constitution for his own use. Andrew Jackson vetoed the ruling of the court because he was of the belief and departmentalism.

3. congressional precedent-congresses interpretation of the Constitution. Office of legal counsel attorney general's interpretation of the Constitution

4. functionalism- interpretation based on the function of the law. Judiciary has ultimate authority to interpret judicial laws. Executive would interpret treaties search and seizures and legislative with interpret other laws. 

5. judicial supremacy-supreme Court is in charge of interpretation of the Constitution.

6. popular interpretation–the people aren't charge of interpreting the constitution

The constitution is the countermajoritarian document but in the long run people will get what they want. 

Federalist was Aaron Burr

Anti-Federalist was Thomas Jefferson

The election of 1800

No one got a majority in the electoral college. Jefferson and Burr are tired during 26 rounds of voting by the House of Representatives.

The anti-Federalist sweep the Congress

Midnight judges act-creates 42 new judges. Adam signs Marshall Secretary of State seals commission but commissions are not delivered

Marshall becomes the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Marlbury was appointed as justice of the peace of Washington DC

Marbury sues for his commission for writ of mandamus which is the common-law remedy in the courts of England to compel Kings officials to perform miniscule nondiscretionary duties to compel Madison to deliver commission. 1789– Judiciary act Supreme Court has power to issue writs of mandamus

Chief Justice Marshall ruled the following: does Marbury have a right to commission? Yes

Can we grant him a remedy to that right? No

The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter. Article 3 of the Constitution lays out the judicial power of federal courts. In order for the supreme court to hear a dispute it has to be one of the nine types of disputes which include six types of disputes and three types of controversies. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction over two types of matters: issues affecting ambassador and controversies between two states.

The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all other types of cases. 

Chief Justice Marshall rules that the Constitution does not give United States Supreme Court authority AKA jurisdiction to hear Marbury's case. Marshall dismisses the case because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Counter majoritarian view is at the heart of judicial review. The United States Supreme Court is the only governmental body that mostly lacks democratic structure.

Additional reasonings for Marbury

We have a written constitution

We want to avoid congressional self-dealing

Article 3 subsection 2 stage judicial power extends to all cases arising under the Constitution

Article 6 subsection 3 judges are bound by oath to support the constitution

Article 6 subsection 2 Stacy constitution only laws enacted pursuant to it is the supreme law of the land

Judicial review is a contested theory.

Statutory grant that gives federal court power to hear a case.

How do you know from the statute that a federal court can here case?

The well pleaded complaint rule. Title 28 United States code 1331

Only looks at the four corners of the complaint to determine if the complaint deals with constitutional question or laws of United States and treaties made

The statutory grant of US title 28 are narrower than the article 3 of the Constitution

Complete diversity –you cannot have any plain be from the same place as the defendant

.

Minimal diverse city only requires a single defendant and/or plaintiff to be domiciled in different states.

Complete diversity- requires that all defendants and plaintiffs must be domiciled in different states.

Minimal diverse city– only requires a single defendant or plaintiff to be domiciled in different states.

Means a alive case or controversy. There has to be litigants on opposing sides who assert different fax there must be facts in the hypothetical situations four main criteria to determine judiciability

1. standing–plaintiff is asserting that his or her rights have been violated

2. rightness the case must be right meaning whether you are facing imminent injury not a hypothetical injury. Article 3 states no advisory opinions only real disputes.

3. Mootness- the claim is no longer valid. for example if suing to prevent house demolition house gets demolished in the in Then the case becomes moot.

Civil rights–fundamental right to buy and sell property to sue and be sued and be recognized as individual

Political rights

Social rights

Ability to enter into contracts is a fundamental civil right

14th amendment

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." This clause protects fundamental rights of individual citizens and restrains state efforts to discriminate against out-of-state citizens. However, the Privileges and Immunities Clause extends not to all commercial activity, but only to fundamental rights.

1. You have the right to go to the seat of government and yell at your representative

2. You have the right to use the navigable waterways

3. You have the right to be saved from pirates in the open seas.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

1. substantive

2. procedural

Procedural Due Process aims to protect individuals from the coercive power of government by ensuring that adjudication processes under valid laws are fair and impartial (e.g., the right to sufficient notice, the right to an impartial arbiter, the right to give testimony and admit relevant evidence at hearings, etc.). In contrast, 

Substantive Due Process aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments which exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts find the majority's enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the process of enforcement actually is.

In other words, procedural due process consists of the restrictions that the law places on the legal process; substantive due process is the determination of whether or not the law itself exceeds government authority.

Incorporation Doctrine

The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rightsare made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that state governments are held to the same standards as the Federal Government regarding certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court could have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in the Slaughter-House Cases 83 US 36, the Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment placed no restriction on the police powers of the state and it was intended to apply only to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and not the privileges and immunities of citizens of the individual states. This decision effectively put state laws beyond the review of the Supreme Court. To circumvent this, the Supreme Court began a process called “selective incorporation” by gradually applying selected provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.

Wrote the statue?

Is it a state law or federal law?

Did the government entity have the power to impact the statute? If this is state law? is it a valid use of the police power?

State governments have police power to protect the citizens health safety and well-being.

1. did the federal government have the power to enact?

Congress has limited enumerated powers. Article one section 8, the necessary and proper clause, 14th amendment to section 5 enforcement clause, Many amendments have clauses that gives Congress the power to make laws to enforce that amendment.

2. assuming Congress has the power to pass the law, Did this law violates some privilege or immunity or restriction?

Restrictions on the federal government come from the Bill of Rights. Only the federal government can violate your Bill of Rights. States can violate your rights to the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment limits state governments.

1. what does the 14th amendment section 1 protect?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor did nine to any person within his jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. is the law a proportional and congruent response to protecting the rights listed in section 1 above?

1. the Law of Nations cover treaties

For example war and peace

International trade

Navigation

Diplomacy

Step one

Does government have the power to make this law?

Step two

Is there any limit to this power? Scope of due process gets shrunk with new deal era

. Does this violate any limit or restriction?

Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment Bill of Rights or other amendments article one section 8 is another place that lists congressional powers

State powers comes from the state constitution the 14th amendment and article one section 10 of the Constitution.

Step one–is this law a valid exercise of police power? Is this a valid objective? Is the state pursuing general welfare via this law? Under Lochner Era this would have been seen as pandering to special interest.

Step two –is this lot reasonably related to this objective?

Promoting public interests although private contracts have a small caveat out of this.

The caveat is that in public contracts courts feel that there is special risk of self regulating court is going to be much stricter when evaluating step two with public contracts,

Footnote four–court will decide on constitutionality of statute. Court court will examine whether The law by Lisa constitution. If law does not expressly violate constitution court is not going to second-guess.

2. Court will not police legislative process but will police political process court will keep clear channels of political institutional choice

The representation reinforcing theory–laws that protect incumbents

Prohibit political speech

Laws that limits criticizing the government

Laws that make it hard to vote or get on the ballot

Discrete and insular racial minorities

If there are certain groups of people in society who are systematically excluded in the political process–courts will examine those laws closely. This is a radical new view and role of courts and legislature.

Step one-does this law support a compelling reason(Actual purpose) of the government? For example promoting public health, racial diversity, preventing corruption?

Step two-this law must be the most narrowly tailored means to achieve this actual purpose. Was there any other way to achieve this purpose? For example there must be a tight fit between the statute and compelling interests. Is this law unduly burdensome? Is this law over or under inclusive? 

If a law discriminate based on race it is the subject to strict scrutiny instead of rational basis.

Earl Warren becomes chief justice of the Supreme Court

This involves a dramatic rebirth of substantiative due process

This creative state and federal federal public defenders

This created a Miranda rights

This change criminal procedure

When a state passes a law that impacts the national commerce or interstate commerce.

There's a three prong pike balancing approach

The dormant commerce clause lays out default restrictions. The DCC applies in the absence of congressional legislation.

Congress can decide if some discrimination is allowed in terms of interstate commerce.

Congress can pass a law that gives an undue favor to state if they see fit.

Step one-is the purpose of this law to discriminate in favor of its citizens against interstate commerce. Or does the law only have an incidental impact or burden on interstate commerce. 

Does the law given advantage to in-state workers or businesses

Step two –is there legitimate purpose for the law?

Step three –does the law substantially burden interstate commerce when there is a less burdensome way to achieve the states purposes? Less demanding than strict scrutiny.

For example, In Florida made a law that all orange juice must have 50% Florida orange juice this will trigger the pike balancing test.

Second example, if Florida made a law that disease oranges in Florida can't be sold. All oranges in the nation are diseased with the exception of Florida. This example will pass that one because the impact/burden is incidental. This is not a scheme to protect Florida growers but to protect public health

When the state is self expanding its own money to market or subsidize something them pike balancing does not apply.

For example, any private business that construction building in Florida must hire at least fifty percent of Florida residents for contractors this violates the dormant commerce clause because this unduly burden's interstate commerce.

Second example,  Second example if any state agency built the building for 50% of the workers must be Florida residents this is constitutional because the state is spending its own money.

Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.

Congress is empowered to regulate and protect that instrumentalities of interstate commerce or person are things in interstate commerce even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities

Taxing power