I NEED A LAWYERS HELP (for school)

state action? I'd have to know the context to be more specific but generally state action means a law enacted by a state legislature or executive act or judicial act undertaken by the state government. The normal context where this is relevant is when one is discussing 14th Amendment jurisprudence. In other words the 14th Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection against/with regard to any "state action." Which is why the 14th Amendment wasn't the vehicle used to guarantee desegregation of restaurants, hotels, etc. These are not state actors, so the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to them. Instead Congress used their commerce clause power to desegregate private businesses.

Interposition is the idea that a state is sovereign even vis a vis the federal government and can reject a mandate of the federal government. The doctrine originated out of Chisholm v. Georgia and the aftermath when Georgia thumbed it's nose at the Supreme Court's decision in that case and refused to recognize it. Needless to say this is more of a historical doctrine and not anything that is common today. The overwhelming majority of Supreme Court decisions have been accepted by the states even if at times they do so begrudgingly.

Equity power of the courts is another term I'd have to know the exact context to give you a meaningful answer. Historically, courts were divided into common law courts and equity courts with very separate jurisdictions for each. The equitable power of a court now just means the court's ability to do justice....not necessarily that bound by actual common law or legal rules. Common examples of equity power now would be the ability of the court to issue an injunction (fancy word meaning telling someone to STOP doing something). Another example is specific performance....which in the context of contract law means forcing the breaching party to finish their end of the bargain.....as opposed to making them pay money damages.

Stream of commerce. Again context would be helpful. Legal scholars argue all the time about what constitutes stream of commerce and what doesn't. Generally it means putting ones products or services out there for sale, into the stream of commerce. In the legal context, it's often used to determine if a state has jurisdiction over a company from another state.....usually they will if that company's product through the stream of commerce ended up in the state exercising jurisdiction.

Sorry if this isn't very helpful.

 

Hmmm. Knowing that the class is on race and the law.....I'll stick with my state action answer. Obviously the 14th Amendment was one of the Civil Rights amendments passed after the end of the Civil War with the hope that it would provide newly freed blacks with rights in the face of opposition that was sure to come from the states who had previously enslaved them. But as I said previously, the 14th Amendment only applies to state action, not private action. Now the legal realists disputed that there should really be a distinction between the two.....but I won't bore/confuse you with discussing Roscoe Pound, Karl Llewellyn, et al.

Interposition....in the context of your class probably has to do with the southern states threatening to ignore Supreme Court civil rights decisions/desegregation. Ross Barnett of Mississippi trying to block integration of Ole Miss comes to mind. Eisenhower sending the National Guard to Little Rock to make sure Arkansas complied, etc.

I'll stick by what I said about equity. Obviously a court issuing an order telling a school district it could no longer segregate is an equitable remedy.....as opposed to a purely legal remedy like giving the suing black parents money damages.

Stream of commerce still seems odd to me in the context of which you speak. But it seems like it must be dealing with Congress's commerce clause power....as I mentioned....which was the power under which Congress passed the 1960's Civil Rights acts. Because hotels, lunch counters, private bus companies weren't state actors, Congress had to find another way to force desegregation. So based on their commerce clause power, they passed laws saying segregation was illegal. The question begged was....How does a little barbecue joint in Alabama affect interstate commerce to the extent commerce is justified in regulating it. (real case btw....Katzenbach v. McClung) SCOTUS said Congress could do so because the grain for the bread may have come from Kansas, or the tomatos in the sauce (hopefully not mustard based) came from California.....therefore even a little barbecue joint in Podunk Alabama was part of the stream of commerce and could be regulated by Congress....and forced to desegregate.

Hope that makes a little more sense.

 

Not sure that conforms to proper Blue Book standards for legal citations.....but it'll do.






p.s. there's a typo in my comment on legal realism....legal realists argued that there should NO distinction between private and state actors.

 

no. what goes around, comes around.