My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01815
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1800-1899
>
pf_01815
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 11:36:29 AM
Creation date
2/21/2024 11:34:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1815
Planning Files - Type
Rezoning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
THE <br />In view of fact that <br />laws protecting the mail <br />of the Con, <br />ess embrace <br />necessary to insure the serf" <br />transit and prompt, deli <br />and mail matter and not <br />mails under that exclusive" <br />Congress but -mail" w <br />such and so long as it r <br />contemplation of law p <br />National Government. U <br />D.C.Mo.1955. 137 FSupp.' <br />235 F.2d 930. certiorari de' <br />266. 352 US. 943. 1 LEd.2d- <br />The power of Congress ove . <br />is not unlimited and is subject <br />of Rights. Securities and <br />Commission v. Timetrust. Inc..,I <br />1939. 28 FSupp. 34. <br />3. Exclusiveness of power <br />The power of the Congress tc <br />.ac mail is exclusive and its regal <br />the receipt, carriage and ultittutCh< <br />cry of mail "to the person to ' <br />directed" is therefore supreme, <br />Maxwell. D.C.Mo.1955. 137 FStt <br />affirmed 235 F.2d 930. ecrtiorari�e <br />77 S.Ct. 266, 352 US. 943, 1 1 Ed:2d <br />Only Congress regulates <br />cd States. Severs v. Abra}=A <br />124 N.W.2d 150. 255 Iowa 979.- <br />4. Delegation of powers <br />See Notes of Decisions under saLA <br />of this article, yi <br />5. State regulation or control--G <br />ally <br />18 U.S.C.A. § 1461 punishing <br />tual mailing or advertising by nit <br />obscene material did not preempt <br />regulatory field, and state obscenity' <br />utc in no way imposing a burden <br />interfering with federal postal faud <br />was not repugnant to this clause deli <br />ing to Congress power to esublis§ <br />offices and post roads. Roth V. USA <br />& N.Y.1957, 77 S.Ct. 1304. 354 U <br />I LEd.2d 1498, rehearing <br />S.Ct. 8, 355 US. 852, 2 r _Ed 2d <br />This power, having been <br />the federal government. is <br />:.`.e power of Lhe several status <br />lish any postal system, and <br />law made a monopoly exd hid <br />vale individuals from csta <br />peting or postal systems in <br />States. Hoover v. McCh , <br />1897. 81 F. 472. = <br />W.S.A. 201.42 pertainimw gme <br />Art 1 POST OFFICES AND POST ROADS SM`B, CI. 7 <br />a 12 <br />fJ ,,,,, Interfere with use of mail. did 9. - 7-0010i <br />prohibit such companies from using if Postmaster General. pursuant to and <br />the ,n ►ils. did not interfere with Con- to exercise of authority vested in him by <br />ltes� c.tclusive power to determine what Congressional enactment, contemplates <br />,.hall be carried and `"hat shall be ex- erection of post office on proposed site. <br />.luded in mailarand^did not violate this his authority -may- not be-zcsUic&cd,.by . <br />clause. Ministers Life & Cas. Union v. local ordinance. and resort to local zon- <br />1133sc. 1966. 141 N.W 2d 287. 30 Wis..2d ing board is unnecessary. Crivcllo V. <br />139. appeal dismissed 87 S.Ct. 407. 385 Board of Adju-tment of Borough of Mid - <br />US. 205. 17 LEd.2d 301. rehearing de- dlesex. D.C.N-J.1960. 183 FSupp. 826. <br />nicd 87 S.Ct. 739. 385 U.S. 1033. 17 Refusal by city zoning board of appli- <br />LEd.2d 681. cation for use of lot as substation post <br />office. which had been leased to United <br />States for ten years. was not unconstitu- <br />tional as unlawful regulation of property <br />of United States, since such property was <br />not within exclusive jurisdiction of Unit- <br />cd States. Mayor and City Council of <br />Baltimore v. linthicvm. 1936. 183 A. <br />531. 170 Md. 245. <br />10. Acquisition of land for post offices <br />The authority of the federal guvern- <br />mcnt to acquire property necessary or <br />suitable for post office is within the ex- <br />press grant of power giver, by this provi- <br />sion. U.S. v. Certain Parcels of Land in <br />Town of Denton of Caroline County. <br />D.C.Md.1939. 30 FSupp. 372. <br />The power expressly given to the Unit- <br />ed States to establish post offices and <br />carry on offensive and defensive war by <br />general grant of power to do all which <br />was necessary and proper to effectuate <br />those express powers gave the United <br />States the power to exercise cmfncnt do- <br />main over territorial lands within the <br />limits of the United St.+-n. and all lands <br />needed for the scat of the government of <br />the United States, and for establishment <br />of post offices. forts. arsenals. and other <br />needful buildings. U.S. v. 458.95 Acres <br />of Land. D.C.Pa.1938. 22 FSupp. 1017. <br />it. Examination of letters or parcels <br />. No law of Congress can place in the <br />hands of officials connected with the <br />postal service any authority to invade <br />the secrecy of letters and such scaled <br />packages in the trail: and all regulations <br />adopted as to mail of this kind trust be <br />subordinate to the principle embodied in <br />Amend. 4. Ex parts Jackson. N.Y.1878. <br />% US. 724.- 6 Otto. 724, 24 LE& gn- <br />See, also. Blaekham v. Grp. C-C.N- <br />Y.1893. 16 F. 609. <br />6. Drugs <br />The operation of the mails was not <br />affected by the New Mexico Controlled <br />Substances Act. 1953 Comp. § 54-11-21. <br />and this clause giving Congress the pow- <br />er to establish post offices did not <br />prccmpt New Mexico jurisdiction to pro- <br />hibit the distribution of controlled sub - <br />'lances by the mailing of the substance. <br />State v. McHorse. 1973. 517 P2d 75. 85 <br />�.�t. 753. <br />7 -- Labor organizations <br />The provisions of McKinney's N.Y. <br />Civil Rights Law. §§ 41. 43. 45, forbid- <br />ding labor organizations from denying <br />membership therein because of race, col- <br />or, or creed, as applied to railway postal <br />clerks association, is not repugnant to <br />provision of this clause conferring on <br />Congress the authority over postal mat- <br />ters. and hence is not unconstitutional as <br />an attempt to regulate a federal instru- <br />mentality since the law does not impinge <br />on federal mail service or the power of <br />the government to conduct it. Railway <br />Mail Assn v. Corsi. N.Y.1945. 65 S.Ct. <br />1483. 326 US. 88. 89 LEd. 2072. <br />8. - Taxation <br />Statute providing for the taxation of <br />intangibles was applicable to postal sav- <br />ings certificates and not unconstitutional <br />as contrary to provision of this article <br />vesting in Congress power to borrow <br />money on credit of the United Stairs and <br />to establish post ogees. Lutz v. Arnold. <br />1935. 193 N.E 840. 209 Ind. 480. petition <br />overruled 196 Ni+ 702. 209 Ind. 480. <br />Motor veMcic tax. imposed by Laws <br />1923, c. 418, on motor trucks used to <br />interstate commerce, does not violate <br />this clause, giving Congress power to es- <br />tablish past offices and post roads - <br />State v. Oligney. 1925. 202 N.W. 893. 162 12. Forrlign mall <br />Mann. 302. Foreign mail is so closc�l�y_ connected <br />Registration tax on automobiles devot- with a proper system of inland U00 as <br />ed exclusively to transportation of mails that the power to organize and carry on <br />is void. Louwein v. Moodv. Tex.Com- a general post -office system old seem <br />I <br />.0A <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.