The Impact of Federal Business Laws on States - Research Paper Example

? United s Federal Laws Contents LEGAL RESEARCH PAPER I.INTRODUCTION. 3 II.LEGISLATION. 4 III.RATIONALE. 5 IV.SUBSEQUENT CASE ANALYSIS. 6 V.CONCLUSION. 9 a.SOCIAL IMPACT. 9 b.PERSONAL OPINION. 11 VI.Works Cited 12 I. INTRODUCTION. United States Business law only applicable to the people living in the United States territory. Congress only creates and passes the bills but the President by signing those bills make them as laws. Then Federal court is there to review those bills. If Federal Court does not agree with the United States Constitution, Federal Court has full authority to dismantle it. This law protects the interest of businessman, government, society and all the stake holder to that interest. This law is procured by the congress to regulate certain interstate commerce. All the statutes put in the codified form in the United States Code. Also many statutes give the power to executive branch agencies to create regulation which generally published into federal register and codified into Code of federal regulations. Under the Chevron doctrine regulations carry the force of law. Under the principle of stare decisis many lawsuit turn into meaning of a federal statue or regulation. Legal force been carried out on judicial interpretation of such meaning. In federal constitution like the military, money, foreign affairs (especially international matters), tariffs, intellectual property (generally copyrights and patents), mail there were an express grant of power to the federal government, this was specially focused during 18th and 19th century. After the start of 20th century broad interpretation of commerce and spending clauses applied on various sectors like aviation, telecommunications, railroads, pharmaceuticals, antitrust and trademarks. Certain areas like railroads, aviation federal government has developed some comprehensive schemes that interpret virtually all kind of state law, but in case of family law relatively small number of people interacts with large amount of state law in interstate and international situation. For employment law, trademark and antitrust case both federal and state law coexist. But for some areas like insurance congress refused to enact any laws as those areas are covered by state laws. II. LEGISLATION. Federal regulation are created by the method called rule making. Public consult is necessary for creation, modification or if deleting is necessary for any rules from the Federal Regulation Code for federal agencies. Code of Federal Regulation is a yearly publication where complete list of the Regulations of Federal Agencies available. When a regulation needs to be add, change or delete then the consecutive agency should published a propose rule in the Federal Register for the public opinion. After an agency verified the public opinions and changes been implemented then that agency can publish the new rules of federal register and mention the dates from when law should be effective and enforceable. But after final rule of comment agency should always response and describe to any public queries. On the other hand state laws are different types, it only applicable to the people who lives in the state. Here state legislatures create a bill and pass it to governor for sign it, and when governor sign it transform into a law. Again there are state court who can reject the law if they do not agree with the state’s constitution. The Law Library of Congress having a library guide for each and every state which helps public to find different state’s individual laws and regulations. III. RATIONALE. Congress has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. That is why they had to prevent any deceptive or fraudulent action been taken by one to achieve economic advantage in a particular market over others. This is a reasonable approach from congress to undermine the free-market economy of the United States. Business has a direct impact on society and cultural values. Every business in any given market has the equal right to develop a unique product or service to compete in that market. Congress protected that right of each business to do just that, consistent with due process of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the constitution as this law provides remedies to those stakeholders of a business whose rights been violated. There were no general federal common law under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins in 1938. Federal courts can create federal common law as a form of case law. These laws can be linked to the particular federal constitutional provision, statue or regulation. Which later included as a part of constitution. Federal court does not have that kind of freedom like state courts to simply make up a law. State court can make up a law in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions to replace a common law. Only few cases like maritime law, federal court can make up a law without the knowledge of constitutional or statutory provision and directly express and authorized the continuation of English common law in the federal level. Other factors of Erie doctrine is that federal court cannot command over state law where no federal issue is there. When state law takes to different jurisdiction the federal trial court must apply a decision law and statutory law like they are a state court. This is applicable also when federal court belief that respective state law is an irrational or. Under Erie, there is only one difference of state court and federal court like state courts are free from any federal interpretations of state law. Also judicial interpretations of federal law from the federal district and intermediate appellate courts having better persuasive value. For state court they can disobey those interpretations. Though there is only one federal court that can bind all the state court to the interpretation of federal laws as well as federal constitution and that is United States Supreme Court. When the President signs a bill to form a law or congress can also enacts it by veto that bill is delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and there a number been provide to it and prepare it for publication as a slip law. Office of the Federal Register (OFR) gives legal statutory citation to public laws only but no private laws. After each session of congress, slip laws are put into a bound volumes and called United States Statutes at Large and known as session laws. The statutes present these laws in chronological order as they enacted. Public laws are put into the United States Code which is a library of all general, permanent laws of the United States. Cumulative supplements of that publish in every year but main documents publish at six year interval by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives. These Code is arranged several times as per the subject matter. IV. SUBSEQUENT CASE ANALYSIS. Case 1 The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) controls aids to political movements by the means of bottom limits, the sum one individual can provide to a single applicant, and the collective limits, the entire amount an entity can provide to a certain number of political committees or contenders. Shaun McCutcheon, a donor to a variety of organizations and candidates, took legal action against the FEC in the district court charging that total limits breach his First Amendment rights to association and freedom of expression. He disagreed that cumulative limits are no longer essential to please the lawful government rationale of avoiding circumvention of bottom limits. He claims that combined limits are too broad and that the sole function they perform is to avert prosperous donors from uniting themselves with the nominees. The FEC on the other hand claims that cumulative limits put a stop on contributors from circumventing bottom limits, decrease the emergence of corruption, and putting off any specified giver from applying impermissible control over an elected official. During September 2012, the constituency court upholds the collective limits, searching for the constitutionally acceptable limits (Legal Information Institute n.d.).  The case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission poses severe challenge for the constitutionality of collective limits on the donations made by the general people to the political contenders. It earns close concentration from the general advocate—even a fine pronouncement could shatter or raise the upper limit on business donations and consequently alter the way large business supports political contenders. An associate at Beltway firm Hollingsworth and a senior director at George Mason’s law school named Richard Faulk converses with the representative of CorpCounsel.com regarding yet another civil case that the general advocate at international business firms should have eyes on this case: DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman. The concerned defendant stated that the infringement took place previous to the now-Italian Chrysler’s and German automobile manufacturer Daimler AG’s severance during the year 2007. In the concerned case, the judges will be deciding whether a worker for an indirect ancillary of an overseas parent company, like a self-governing supplier, can take legal action for the violation of human rights in the United States. According to Faulk, “A lot of the major manufacturers around the country are watching this case very carefully,” “If the Supreme Court doesn’t reverse the Ninth Circuit, it will definitely affect how all corporations do business. There’s going to be greater attention on liability all the way up the line, despite all the great effort to maintain separation from subsidiaries” (Hunt 2013). It can be said that Faulk has a justified point since companies arrange their business to lessen legal responsibility, any alterations in who will be regarded as accountable would possibly result in a business shuffle to manage risk. Case 2 The relations of two teenagers of North Carolina were killed in an accident caused by a bus hurtle in France that brought a case in the state court in the region of North Carolina, declaring defective tires. Those tires were manufactured in Turkey, and the petitioners accused Goodyear's Luxembourg plant and its departments located in France and Turkey. An appeals court in North Carolina held that the overseas defendants had adequate networks in the region to back the general individual authority. The question that was raised stated whether a customer can take legal action against an overseas maker in a court of the U.S. where the maker’s only association within the United States was the other firm that sells its goods in this nation? During the term of 2010-2011 the Supreme Court declared 2 verdicts that put forth the Due Process Clause that forbids regional courts from implementing personal influence over foreign producers in definite state of affairs. In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, the judgement held that overseas maker’s sales of a restricted amount of products in a region did not issue the producers to individual authority in that province for demise of state inhabitants that took place outside the area and was happened by goods sold external to the province. The undisputed judgment unconditionally differentiated within specific and general individual influence, stating clearly that restricted sales do not assure the “substantial” operations or “continuous and systematic” networks necessary for wide-ranging command. In the case of J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, the Court put forth that a regional court is deficient of personal authority over claims by a provincial occupant against an overseas maker that sells a faulty commodity to a merchant in the region where it becomes the reason for serious injury to the users. Author of the unanimous opinion in Goodyear Dunlop Tires, Justice Ginsburg, disputed in Nicastro, stating and protesting that the possession got separated from the earlier one and communicating apprehension with the novel premises of authority provided by the plurality (Hoffheimer 2012). The Supreme Court upturned the order by lower court in an undisputed verdict by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ginsburg stated, "A connection so limited between the forum and the foreign corporation, we hold, is an inadequate basis for the exercise of general jurisdiction,” "Such a connection does not establish the 'continuous and systematic' affiliation necessary to empower North Carolina courts to entertain claims unrelated to the foreign corporation's contacts with the State” (Iscotus now 2010). V. CONCLUSION. a. SOCIAL IMPACT. There is significant amount of impact of Federal Laws on States fund on social factors like child protection, child welfare and child adoption facilities and services. Here I am discussing about various impact of Federal laws on policies, rules and regulation for child abuse, child neglect, child welfare, child adoption programs. In Child Welfare Information Gateway (2012) provides major laws regarding child protection, child welfare and adoption. This also helps us to track all the policy changes regarding impact of federal level and welfare of tribal child system and delivery services. Another index is a Gateway of Child Welfare Information. It is basically a tabular form of data store of several entities like children, families and various governmental and nongovernmental agencies which work for the cause of the children welfare. Both the Children’s Bureau and United States. Department of Health & Human Services departments mandatorily follow the basis and programs of federal laws and regulations. Also it gives general prospective of Federal Statutes and several rules and regulation asked by State Child Welfare or ACF Regional Centers. Various government agencies like Children’s Bureau, United States Health and Human Services Departments also gives data to Children’s Bureau policies like Federal, State and tribal laws also there are other resources. Several legislative history and purposes are summarized into Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. It is also known as CAPTA which is the key foundation which fights for child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act which is also known as CAPTA incorporated from P.L 93-247 and this one was the most recently (on December 20th, 2010) reauthorized and amended under the Reauthorization Act 2010 of CAPTA (P.L. 111-320). In 2010, an act for Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment was implemented which is also known as CAPTA Reauthorization Act gives us a clear knowledge of the CAPTA, this also Includes Adoption Opportunities and the Abandonment of Infants Assistance Act. And it amended as P.L. 111-320. Agencies like Children’s Bureau, United States Health and Human Services Department (2010) gives Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act which is also known as CAPTA as law by the Reauthorization Act of CAPTA in 2010. There in text format the Adoption Opportunities process and Infants Abandoned Assistance Act is available. b. PERSONAL OPINION. I personally think United States Federal Laws are assets for our country. It not only protects the interest of business but also it serves a great value to our society and governments as well. With the help of this law contemporary rule of binding been possible in United States. After nineteenth century when clear court hierarchy which was implemented in Judiciary Acts and by the decision of West Publishing a regular verbatim publication from United States was began. I believe this law assists industries to do business in United States’ territories. I am really thankful to the Congress and United States President for procuring such an amendment and also thankful to the Federal Court of United States for securing the business interest of United States Industries. This not only helping our nation’s economy but also making the image of United States as the best place for business and investment. If there were no such laws then interest of business personal should crossed the interest of society and as a whole it would made a wrong impression for United States and in the name of business there would have a chaos running around. VI. Works Cited Legal Information Institute. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Cornell University Law School. n.d. Web. Hunt, Angel. Supreme Court Cases for U.S. Businesses to Watch. Corporate Counsel. 2013. Web. Hoffheimer, Michael H. General Personal Jurisdiction After Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown. KANSAS LAW REVIEW. 2012. Pdf. Iscotus now. Goodyear v. Brown. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 2010. Web. Read More