Paul brennan why settle

Patricia H. Brennan Hand Delivery, Petitioners, v. Brennan and J. Paul Brennan have applied to me for a stay of the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pending the filing and disposition by this Court of their petition for a writ of certiorari.

Applicants operate a hand delivery mail service in Rochester, N. The Court of Appeals affirmed, denied motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and refused to stay its judgment pending disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Applicants invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U. The argument applicants press here is that Congress exceeded its powers by granting the USPS a monopoly over the conveyance of letter mail.

To establish Post Offices and post Roads. Although Congress has authority under Art. The well-established criteria for granting a stay are "that the applicants must show 'a balance of hardships in their favor' and that the issue is so substantial that four Justices of this Court would likely vote to grant a writ of certiorari.

Membership number TT Don't forget! Initial impression Initial impression: 4. Find out more Register Guarantee. We are experienced and skilled at the following: Renovations Extensions Loft Conversions Conservatories Roofing Garage Conversions Driveways Patios Tiling Carpentry Plastering Coving Plumbing Electrical Work Kitchen fitting If there is something that you require that is not in the above list do not hesitate to call us as we are always happy and available to give you professional, friendly and helpful advice.

We give free, non obligatory quotes and estimates. Our service is friendly, clean and tidy, and reliable. We look forward to hearing from you. Qualifications Member of Trustatrader. Before photo Image 2 - Bungalow extension in Tring. After photo Image 3 Image 4 Image 5 - Front view of two storey extension.

Image 6 - Two storey wrap around extension in Berkhamsted. Image 7 - Two storey wrap around extension in Berkhamsted. Image 8 - External paving. Image 9 View all 18 images Image 11 - Split level extension. Image 12 - Split level extension. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.

There is nothing novel or unprecedented in the governmental monopoly. Scheele, Neither Snow, Nor Rain. The Story of the United States Mails , it has been noted that private industry could not have attempted to supply the postal requirements of a frontier nation. See W. Congress certainly could have determined that something less than a federal monopoly would allow the continuance of an effective postal system. However, the wisdom of the choice is not the question for the court; we may only pass on Congress' power to make it.

The constitutionality of the postal monopoly has been challenged rarely and never successfully. The proprietor of the private service sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Postmaster General from seizing the mail Boyd's City Dispatch was delivering. No attack was made on the constitutionality of the private express statute, U. Rather, plaintiff sought to distinguish her business from those covered by the statute.

The court in Blackham v. Gresham, 16 F. As pointed out by the attorney general of the United States in , 9 Op. Emphasis supplied. The most recent opinion in point is United States v. Black, F. In Black the defendants operated a private express conveying letters between the cities of Pittsburgh and Frontenac in the State of Kansas. The defendants admitted that they violated 18 U. The court held that the postal monopoly was constitutional because it was a valid exercise by Congress of the power granted it by Art.

This case is indistinguishable from the present appeal. We conclude that the postal power, in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause, as interpreted by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch, authorizes Congress to exercise its power to the utmost extent.

The monopoly which Congress created is an appropriate and plainly adapted means of providing postal service beneficial to the citizenry at large.

Consequently, the Private Express Statutes are constitutional. Appellants' remaining constitutional arguments are even less persuasive. They rely upon the Tenth Amendment which provides:. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

However, the postal power is a delegated power and, as we have found under the necessary and proper clause, in determining to occupy the field exclusively in the conveyance of letters, Congress was not exceeding its powers.

As the Court stated in Case v. Bowles, U. Since the decision in McCulloch v. And we have said, that the Tenth Amendment "does not operate as a limitation upon the powers, express or implied, delegated to the national government. Since we have decided the creation of a postal monopoly is a proper exercise of power, the Tenth Amendment argument adds nothing of substance to the constitutional issue here, particularly since no threat to state sovereignty is involved. See National League of Cities v.

Usery, U. Appellants further urge that by permitting the Postal Service to define letters or packets, see 39 U. United States Postal Service, F. The only authorities cited by appellants for their argument on this point are A. Schechter Poultry Corp. United States, U.

Ryan, U. These were the "only two cases in all American history" which held congressional delegations to public authorities invalid. Davis, Administrative Law Text 26 3d ed. Schechter also involved delegation to private groups as well as to public authorities.

Justice Jackson in Fahey v. Mallonee, U. That distinction is valid here. In any event, as Mr. The notion that the Constitution narrowly confines the power of Congress to delegate authority to administrative agencies, which was briefly in vogue in the 's, has been virtually abandoned by the Court for all practical purposes, at least in the absence of a delegation creating "the danger of overbroad, unauthorized, and arbitrary application of criminal sanctions in an area of constitutionally protected freedoms".

Footnote and citation omitted. There is no palpable abuse here and no congressional abdication. On the contrary, the authority and necessity for USPS to define "letters" in view of the myriad methods and modes of communication which presently exist is obvious. Thus, the delegation is constitutional. Finally, the appellants also claim that since the postal monopoly only encompasses letter mail and permits private competition in the delivery of non-letter mail e. As the Supreme Court has often stated, "A classification 'must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.