Laserfiche WebLink
<br />whether the federally.protected right to ttavel is <br />violated therefore does not appear to be relevant <br />to Western's marketing criteria. <br /> <br />Still another constitutional violation alleged by <br />UP&L revolves around the Tenth Amendment, which <br />provides that powers not delegated to the Wnited <br />States by the Constitution are reserved to' the <br />States or to the'people. This assertion is <br />answered by the Supreme Court's decision in <br />Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. <br />288 (1936). In that case, the disposition of <br />Federal power, under the property clause in <br />Article IV of the Constitution, was expressly held <br />to be an activity to which the Tenth Amen9ment was <br />i .. <br />inapplicable. Id. at 330. As the alloca~ion and <br />sale of Federal power is not a traditional State <br />function, no Tenth Amendment violation will take <br />, <br />place under Western's proposed marketing <br />criteria..' Finally, UP&L argues that the! <br />preference cl ause is consti tutiona lly def'ecti ve as <br />being so vague that reasonable men cannot agree <br />upon the statute's meaning. Western cannot <br /> <br />, <br />agree. Successful arguments based upon ~, "voi d <br />for vagueness" theory almost universally ,deal with <br />a fundamental constitutional right, such as <br /> <br />52 <br />