Nicholas Recuset (3601266)

POS 3603

Courtney Walters Esq.

12/10/14

Supreme Court of the United States:

Congresswoman Hermoine v. Harry James Potter Esq. Opinion

The case brought forth by the Plaintiff Hermoine against the defendant Harry Potter, who

is a US attorney, for wrongfully arresting the Plaintiff. This brings forward the question of

Congressional power. Can Congress pass a law making the sale, transport, and usage of Butter

Beer a criminal offense? It also brings into question the conflict between the federal statute and

the Florida state Statute allowing butter Beer. At the time where Harry first encountered

Hermoine consume Butter Beer was in the State of Florida, at the time the State of Florida

allowed the transport, creation, and consumption. Also the growth and use of marijuana for

personal use were also legal per Florida law. The Butter Beer and the marijuana never left

dobby’s house during the first encounter. The defendant Harry, then saw the plaintiff Hermoine

sneak some butter beer into her bag to bring back to Washington DC with her. The defendant

then told the plaintiff “It is a federal offense, punishable by 3 years in prison, to use, to

transport, to consume, or to become otherwise under the influence of butter beer made with any

substances that are deemed illegal by federal law. The Supreme Court of the United States shall

have original jurisdiction over any case involving this offense.”

I

After Hermoine was arrested and released on bail the President of the United States

Albus Dumbledore held the State of the Union Address. President Dumbledore announced that

the executive branch will no longer be arresting or prosecuting individuals for the use,

consumption, and transport of butter beer made with illegal substances. Many other issues need

to be addressed in this case, jurisdiction being one of them.

First on the issue of jurisdiction, the federal statute states “The Supreme Court of the

United States shall have original jurisdiction over any case involving this offense.” The suit filed

was done so under the original jurisdiction clause stated in the above statute. However, the

expansion of original jurisdiction through any act of congress was ruled unconstitutional in

Marbury v. Madison. Precedent binds this court. This means this statute cannot expand the

original jurisdiction of this court and cannot stand the way it is written. The way the federal

statue is written is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States can only hear this

case on appeal. The Constitution states the specific situations where the Supreme Court has

original jurisdiction. However, since Harry James Potter is a U.S. Attorney this case can be

heard before the Supreme Court because the United States is a Party.

On the issue of standing, the court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff,

Hermoine, has suffered a threatening of her personal interest. Hermoine’s freedom and way of

living has been threatened in the wake of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff has standing to sue.

This case is ripe because the original controversy is still present prior to the development of the

suit. Despite the President’s declaration that the “Executive branch would no longer be arresting

or prosecuting individuals for the consumption or transportation of butter beer made with illegal

substances” the case is not moot. As that declaration took place after the crime was committed.

That declaration was made from that moment forward and cannot rectify the actions in the past

II

which, at the time, were crimes. Therefore, this case does not meet the standard of mootness

established in Defunis v. Odegaard so it is ripe. The plaintiff has standing to sue for unlawful

detainment because of unconstitutional congressional acts.

The next issue would be whether or not congress had the ability to pass such legislation

to regulate butter beer. Under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution such legislation would

be constitutional. Based on the decision made in Wickard v. Filburn it is established that

Congress has the authority to regulate commerce even if the production of goods is for personal

use and not for interstate commerce. Any effect that butter beer has or can have on the US

economy is sufficient validity to place butter beer under federal regulation.

Additionally, Congress has authority to pass the legislation stated in this case regulating

butter beer under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution. As Stated

in Article 1 section 8 Congress has the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and

proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” This was upheld in McCulloch v.

Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could pass such legislation and as the national

legislature it should have the power to have such laws enforced. Article one of the Constitution

outlines the power of Congress as the legislature for the United States. With that, the Necessary

and Proper Clause further grants congressional authority to regulate butter beer.

The issue concerning the differences between the federal statute and the Florida state law

can be answered with article six of the US Constitution. The Supremacy Clause as stated in the

constitution “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in

pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the

United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” While the constitution does protect the

states rights, in this case Federal law supersedes state law as the states rights are not being

III

infringed. The court recognizes that the federal statute in place at the time does supersede the

Florida state law.

Next is the issue on if President Dumbledore preserved the power to defend the already

established congressional statute when he issued a statement saying that the executive branch

will no longer enforce laws against marijuana. While the court recognizes that the executive

branch and the legislative branch are two separate entities, the Constitution clearly states the

duties of the President and the Executive Branch. The oath that all Presidents take is to

“faithfully protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The court recognizes that

while the President does have to defend the Constitution, the President does have his own

sovereignty how he wishes to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It is within the

power of the President to effectively run the executive branch and all departments that fall under

their office as they see fit, as long as the actions taken are in line with the Constitution.

This court recognizes the board powers that the President has. President Dumbledore’s

statement that the executive branch will no longer enforce laws regarding butter beer is valid.

Despite being valid, this does not mean that the established law does not exist, simply not

enforced. However, as Hermione committed the crime before this statement was made, she was

still in violation of the established laws. At the time, butter beer mixed with illegal substances

(marijuana) was illegal per federal statue. The Presidents statement does not exempt previous

violators of the law from facing the appropriate penalties. By Hermione bringing the butter beer

to Washington DC with her, outside of the reach of Florida law, she violated that federal law.

This court has carefully reviewed all of the facts and laws pertaining to this case.

Precedent binds this court. Supported by article one of the Constitution, the federal statute

criminalizing any consumption and movement of butter beer mixed with illegal substances if

IV

within the power of Congress. The counsel for the plaintiff claims that the use of butter beer is

legal according to Florida state law. While this is true, the supremacy clause states that all

federal laws supersede state laws. This makes the plaintiffs claim invalid. As Hermione

transported Butter Beer mixed with marijuana to Washington DC, Florida law is no longer valid.

As to the President declaration, there is no legal bound to this claim by the president.

The President does have broad powers, and can chose to enforce or not enforce laws. However,

the law is still in existence as Congress has failed to repeal the criminalization of the use or

transportation of marijuana. Only through Congressional legislation or judicial review can this

executive order be legally binding. The laws in place before are constitutional, and failure to

follow the law is illegal, it is within the right of the government to execute the law. The arrest of

Mrs. Hermione was in accordance with the laws that were in effect at the time and was valid. It

is the opinion of the court that if the defendant Mr. Harry J. Potter may so move to prosecute the

plaintiff Mrs. Hermione, if he sees fit, as she has violated a federal statute. The laws were in

effect at the time of the crime and can be enforced by the government.

V

Workes Cited:

1. US Constitution Article 1 Section 8

2. US Constitution Article 6

3. US Constitution Article 2

4. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 94 S. Ct. 1704, 40 L. Ed. 2d 164 (1974).

5. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

6. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

7. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819).

8. US Constitution Article 3

VI