Reference no: EM131547355

Question: Read and understand the case or question assigned. Show your Analysis and Reasoning and make it clear you understand the material. Be sure to incorporate the concepts of the chapter we are studying to show your reasoning. Dedicate at least one heading to each following outline topic:

- Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant]

- Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case]

- Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?]

- Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns]

- Explain the applicable law(s). Use the textbook here. The law should come from the same chapter as the case. Be sure to use citations from the textbook including page numbers.

- Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?]

- Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision]

- Do significant research outside of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the legal research. This involves something about the parties or other interesting related area. Show something you have discovered about the case, parties or other important element from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and adds value beyond the legal reasoning of the case.

- Dedicate 1 slide to each of the case question(s) immediately following the case, if there are any. Be sure to state and fully answer the questions in the presentation.

- Quality in terms of substance, form, grammar and context. Be entertaining! Use excellent audio-visual material and backgrounds!

-Wrap up with a Conclusion slide. This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the court's ruling.

- Include citations on the slides and a reference slide with your sources. Use APA style citations and references.

- Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council

- Supreme Court of the United States 530 U.S. 363 (2000)

In 1996, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a law barring governmental entities in Massachusetts from buying goods or services from companies doing business with Burma (Myanmar). Subsequently, the U.S. Congress enacted federal legislation imposing mandatory and conditional sanctions on Burma. The Massachusetts law was inconsistent with the new federal legislation. The National Foreign Trade Council sued on behalf of its several members, claiming that the Massachusetts law unconstitutionally infringed on the federal foreign-affairs power, violated the Foreign Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and was preempted by the subsequent federal legislation. The district and appeals courts ruled in favor of the council, and the Commonwealth appealed.

Justice Souter

The Massachusetts law is preempted, and its application is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. State law must yield to a congressional act if Congress intends to occupy the field, or to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute. This is the case even where the relevant congressional act lacks an express preemption provision. This Court will find preemption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal law and where the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives. In this case, the state act is an obstacle to the federal act's delegation of discretion to the president of the United States to control economic sanctions against Burma. Within the sphere defined by Congress, the statute has given the President as much discretion to exercise economic leverage against Burma, with an eye toward national security, as law permits. It is implausible to think that Congress would have gone to such lengths to empower the President had it been willing to compromise his effectiveness by allowing state or local ordinances to blunt the consequences of his actions-exactly the effect of the state act.

In addition, the Massachusetts law interferes with Congress's intention to limit economic pressure against the Burmese Government to a specific range.... Finally, the Massachusetts law conflicts with the President's authority to speak for the United States among the world's nations to develop a comprehensive, multilateral Burma strategy. In this respect, the state act undermines the President's capacity for effective diplomacy.

The Court affirmed the lower courts in favor of the defendant, National Foreign Trade Council.
Methods of Engaging in International Business

For purposes of this chapter, methods of engaging in international business are classified as (1) trade, (2) international licensing and franchising, and (3) foreign direct investment.

TRADE

The export We define international trade generally as exporting goods and services from a country and importing the same into a country. There are two traditional theories of trade relationships. The theory of absolute advantage, which is the older theory, states that an individual nation should concentrate on exporting the goods that it can produce most efficiently. For example, Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) produces tea more efficiently than most countries can and, thus, any surplus in Sri Lanka's tea production should be exported to countries that produce tea less efficiently. The theory of comparative advantage arose out of the realization that a country did not have to have an absolute advantage in producing a good in order to export it efficiently; rather, it would contribute to global efficiency if it produced specialized products simply more efficiently than others did.

International trade of goods and services from a country, and the import of goods and services into a country.

To illustrate this concept, let's assume that the best attorney in a small town is also the best legal secretary. Because this person can make more money as an attorney, it would be more efficient for her to devote her energy to working as a lawyer and to hire a legal secretary. Similarly, let's assume that the United States can produce both wheat and tea more efficiently than Sri Lanka can. Thus, the United States has an absolute advantage in its trade with Sri Lanka. Let us further assume that U.S. wheat production is comparatively greater than U.S. tea production vis-à-vis Sri Lanka. That is, by using the same amount of resources, the United States can produce two-and-a-half times as much wheat but only twice as much tea as Sri Lanka. The United States then has a comparative advantage in wheat over tea.11

11J. Daniels, L. Radebaugh, and D. Sullivan, International Business: Environments and Operations (10th ed.) 148, 149 (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004).