"Congress may not simply `commandee [r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.'"

Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, ie, those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

The court must defer to a congressional finding that a regulated activity affects interstate commerce, if there is a rational basis for such a finding

Court first enumerated three conditions which are each necessary to a claim of Tenth Amendment invalidity, drawing upon National League of Cities: "First, there must be a showing that the challenged statute regulates the `States as States.'Second, the federal regulation must address matters that are indisputably `attribute [s] of state sovereignty.'And third, it must be …

As we noted in Allied Local, the Supreme Court has long made clear that " `the power conferred by the Commerce Clause [is] broad enough to permit congressional regulation of activities causing air or water pollution, or other environmental hazards that may have effects in more than one State.'"

The Court need not decide this question in the context of this case because, such protection notwithstanding, the Supreme Court has determined that "summary administrative action may be justified in emergency situations

—reviewing Surface Mining Control & Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 USC § 1201 et seq.(1976 ed., Supp. III

The Hodel Court similarly took account of "the opportunities provided by the [Surface Mining] Act to obtain administrative relief by requesting either a variance from the approximate-original-contour requirement of § 515 (d) or a waiver from the surface mining restrictions in § 522 (e). If appellees were to seek administrative relief under these procedures, a mutually …

—a regulatory program that adversely affects property values does not constitute a taking unless it destroys a major portion of the property's value.

The Supreme Court has said that "due process ordinarily requires an opportunity for `some kind of hearing'prior to the deprivation of a significant property interest. "