|
|
Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U.S. 251 (1908)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U.S. 251 (1908)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 209 U.S. 246, click here.
Asbell v. Kansas No. 166 Submitted March 6, 1908 Decided March 23, 1908 209 U.S. 251
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
Syllabus
While the state may not legislate for the direct control of interstate commerce, a proper police regulation which does not conflict with congressional legislation on the subject involved is not necessarily unconstitutional because it may have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce.
Until Congress acts on the subject, a state may, in the exercise of its police power, enact laws for the inspection of cattle coming from other states. Reid v. Colorado, 187 U.S. 137.
Congress has not enacted any legislation destroying the right of a state to provide for the inspection of cattle and prohibiting the bringing within its borders of diseased cattle not inspected and passed as healthy either by the proper state or national officials.
A state may not, under pretense of protecting the public health, exclude the products or merchandise of other states, and this Court will determine for itself whether it is a genuine exercise of the police power or really and substantially a regulation of interstate commerce.
Section 27 of Chap. 495 of the laws of Kansas of 1905, prohibiting the transportation of cattle from any point south of the state into the state except for immediate slaughter which have not been passed as healthy by the proper state officials or by the National Bureau of Animal Industry is a proper police regulation within the power of the state, is not in conflict with the Act of February 2, 1903, 32 Stat. 791, or the Act of March 3, 1905, 33 Stat 1204, in regard to inspection of cattle, and is not unconstitutional as a direct regulation of interstate commerce.
60 Kans. 51 affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U.S. 251 (1908) in 209 U.S. 251 209 U.S. 253. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZQBEWRXW9BWICQP.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U.S. 251 (1908), in 209 U.S. 251, page 209 U.S. 253. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZQBEWRXW9BWICQP.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U.S. 251 (1908). cited in 1908, 209 U.S. 251, pp.209 U.S. 253. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ZQBEWRXW9BWICQP.
|