Constitution and Gov Power Final

power to tax is the power to destroy

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

foreign policy cases

Zivotofsky v. Kerry, Secretary of State (2015)

Commerce clause

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" (Article I, Section 3, Clause 8)

cases that deal with federalism

- Crosby v. National Foreign trade Council (2000) - McCulloch v. Maryland (1803) - South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) - National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) - Alden v. Maine (1999) - Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018) - Printz v. United States (1997) - Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)

cases about constitutional war powers

- Ex parte Milligan (1866) - Korematsu v. United States (1944) - Youngstown v. Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) - Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

cases that limited presidential power

- Ex parte Milligan (1866) - Youngstown v. Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (2015)

which cases show dual federalism?

- Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018) - Printz v. United States (1997)

cases that deal with the commerce clause

- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) - Southern Pacific Company v. Arizona (1945) - United States v. Lopez (1995) - Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) - A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)

which cases are the new deal cases?

- Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937) - National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) - A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)

what are 3 ways to interpret presidential use of power

- Youngstown v. Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) 1. president takes action that congress told them to take 2. president takes action that Congress hasn't said anything about 3. president takes action that Congress said they could not do

How does National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) incorporate taxing and spending, commerce clause, and the anti-commandeering doctrine?

- commerce clause does not allow Congress to force individuals to participate in certain markets, and cannot tax them to do so either - anti-commandeering doctrine says you can't coerce states to do something by withholding federal funding

Sovereign immunity

Citizens can't sue the state saying that the state is not following federal law, need more injury

Tax immunity doctrine case

Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury (1989)

which case is about cooperative federalism?

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan transit Authority (1985)

cases about delegation

Gundy v. United States (2019)

Which case has the broadest interpretation of the commerce clause

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)

judicial review

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

which case was officially overturned?

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Southern Pacific Company v. Arizona (1945)

Legal Question - By creating the Train Limit Law, did Arizona violate the Commerce Clause? Holding - Yes Legal Reasoning - Arizona's law placed an undue burden on interstate commerce by discriminating against out-of-state corporations Broad Implications - Protected economic federalism

Alden v. Maine (1999)

Legal Question - Can Congress use its power under Article I of the Constitution to subject nonconsenting states to private suits for damages in their own courts? Holding - No Legal Reasoning - People can't subject nonconsenting states (Heart of Federalism) specifically in the area of private citizens suing state governments involved between state and federal governments looking at the same issue. Broad Implications - Expands sovereign immunity

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

Legal Question - Can US citizens engaged in military activity against the US be tried as an enemy combatant? - Can enemy combatants contest their indefinite detention? Holding - Yes - Yes Legal Reasoning - Even though executive has power and authority in foreign affairs, judiciary can interfere when a US citizen is being interrogated with little evidence Broad Implications - Limits presidential war powers - President can't hold people indefinitely without due process or take away civil liberties

Ex parte Milligan (1866)

Legal Question - Can executive branch choose to arrest and try a citizen under military tribunal commission Holding - No Legal Reasoning - Only can try civilians under presidential created military commission if there are no civil courts available or if the area is under martial law Broad Implications - Presidential and military action during war times does have limitations

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)

Legal Question - Did Congress, in passing Title II of the Civil Rights Act, overextend its Commerce Clause powers by depriving places of accommodation the right to choose their own customers? Holding - No Legal Reasoning - Motel had impact on interstate commerce Broad Implications - Broad interpretation of commerce clause

Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury (1989)

Legal Question - Did Michigan revenue code taxing federal retirement benefits but not states violate the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine? Holding - Yes Legal Reasoning - There is no difference between state and federal government employees so it is obvious discrimination to favor state employees Broad Implications - Tax immunity doctrine limited but still alive

Complete Auto Transit v. Brady (1977)

Legal Question - Did Mississippi's tax violate the commerce clause Holding - No Legal Reasoning - Rejects proposition that interstate commerce is immune from state taxation Broad Implications - The Supreme Court established criteria to ensure that taxes created by the state are valid and do not burden or inhibit interstate commerce 1. The activity being conducted by the business must be connected to the state that is imposing the tax 2. Tax must be fairly apportioned to what the business is making with interstate commerce

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Legal Question - Did the President overreach his war powers by issuing the order which targeted people of Japanese descent? Holding - No Legal Reasoning - Congress and the President agree so court leans to trust their idea and military order was not intended as racial discrimination. Broad Implications - Officially overturned - Broad grant of executive authority to determine threats

South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)

Legal Question - Did the Voting Rights Act of 1965 violate the states rights to execute and manage elections? Holding - No Legal Reasoning - The Voting Rights Act was a valid exercise of Congress power under the enforcement clause of the 15th amendment. Broad Implications - Resolidified the 15th amendment as well as Congress' ability to pass legislation to enforce the constitution.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Legal Question - Does Congress have power under the Commerce Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause to require Americans to purchase health insurance? - Did Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate federalism by pressuring States to accept conditions by threatening to withhold federal funding? Holding - No - Yes Legal Reasoning - The individual mandate was not deemed a valid exercise of Congress' commerce power because the Commerce Clause does not allow compelling individuals to participate in the market Broad Implications - shows the extent of the controversy over the Congress' ability to tax, spend, and regulate commerce under the appropriate clauses.

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018)

Legal Question - Does a federal statute - like PASPA that prohibits state authorization of sports gambling - violate the anti-commandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment? Holding - Yes Legal Reasoning - Federal law is considered the supreme law of the land, but Congress's legislative powers are not unlimited. All other non-enumerated legislative power are reserved for the states, via the anti-commandeering doctrine of the 10th amendment. Broad Implications - make it very clear that the federal government can NOT commandeer the states and order them to carry out federal directives.

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937)

Legal Question - Does the Social Security Act violate the 5th and 10th amendment? Holding - No Legal Reasoning - Tax is laid uniformly geographically - Exemptions were taken with care and not gross enough to qualify as violating 5th amendment - Act does not coerce states to join Broad Implications - could impose taxes for purposes broadly related to promoting the general welfare - Affirmed Congress's power to use financial incentives to regulate state laws

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Legal Question - Does the Supreme Court have the power to issue writ of mandamus in order for an appointed judge to secure his commission? Holding - No Legal Reasoning - 2 limitations to court jurisdiction - There must be a wrong (controversy) - Must be a remedy for the wrong Broad Implications - Establishes judicial review - Court provides final interpretations - Court is the last word on federal law

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Legal Question - Does the government have the power to create a national bank? - Can Maryland tax a federal bank? Holding - Yes - No Legal Reasoning - Interpretation of the necessary and proper clause means the government can create things that are appropriate and legitimate. Also while states have the power of taxation, the constitution and laws made in pursuance of its ideas are supreme and cannot be controlled by states. Broad Implications - Validated doctrine of implied powers from the necessary and proper clause, but outlined that necessary and proper also means appropriate and legitimate. Also states that federal law trumps state law.

.Zivotofsky v. Kerry, Secretary of State (2015)

Legal Question - Does the president have exclusive power to formally recognize a sovereign nation? - Does a federal law that affects the Secretary of State to record the birthplace of an American born in Jerusalem as Israel if asked to infringe on the President's right to recognize foreign states? Holding - Yes - Yes Legal Reasoning - President has right to recognize foreign nations and Congress overstepped that power Broad Implications - President has sole power of recognizing foreign nations

Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (2000)

Legal Question - Is Massachusetts Burma law unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause? Holding - Yes Legal Reasoning - In Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution Congress has the power to preempt state law. State law must abide by a congressional act when congress intends federal law to occupy the nation. Broad Implications - This case sets a distinct precedent for Congress's authority to rule in issues regarding foreign affairs and economic sanctions.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Legal Question - Is executive privilege immune to judicial review and does executive privilege apply if they are being used to cover up criminal activity? Holding - No Legal Reasoning - Executive branch cannot shield themselves from prosecution per the doctrine of executive privilege and it cannot be used to cover up criminal activity. Broad Implications - Presidential immunity does not include criminal activities - Sets up 2 requirements 1. Need viable reason 2. Cannot have ulterior motives - But otherwise broad view of executive privilege

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Legal Question - Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause? Holding - Yes Legal Reasoning - Congress can regulate the commerce power in three broad categories: through the use of the channels of interstate commerce, to protect instrumentalities/people/things in interstate commerce, and activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce. Broad Implications - Narrow interpretation of commerce clause and limited its powers

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895)

Legal Question - Is the national income tax act in violation of the Constitution? Holding - Yes Legal Reasoning - It is a direct tax and should be apportioned correctly, and because the parts are mutually connected as if to be intended as a whole then the whole thing is unconstitutional Broad Implications - Made obsolete by creation of 16 amendment - Large change from how court understood income taxes before

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)

Legal Question - Is the public mass transit authority immune from wage and overtime standards? Holding - No Legal Reasoning - Letting the FLSA amendment stand does not infringe on state sovereignty nor violate the Constitution. Broad Implications - laid out how the relationship between states and the federal government should be enacted.

Printz v. United States (1997)

Legal Question - Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require the state to regulate handgun purchases by performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant background-checks? Holding - No Legal Reasoning - By performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it to compel state local chief law enforcement officers to fulfill its federal tasks for it even temporarily. Broad Implications - case reinforced the principle that the federal government cannot require states to enforce or enact federal programs because it would violate the state's sovereignty.

Gundy v. United States (2019)

Legal Question - Was Congress' delegation of power to the Attorney General unconstitutional? Holding - No Legal Reasoning - Delegation allowed if Congress lays down principles by which delegated authority should follow Broad Implications - Shows to what extent one branch of government can delegate it's powers to another

Youngstown v. Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

Legal Question - Was it constitutional for President Truman to seize the steel mills and operate them? Holding - No Legal Reasoning - 3 ways executive power should be interpreted 1. President takes action that congress told them to take 2. President can take action when Congress hasn't said anything 3. President takes action that Congress said he could not do Broad Implications - Limits presidential power

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)

Legal Question - Was the NLRA consistent with the Commerce Clause? Holding - Yes Legal Reasoning - The court claimed that the NLRA was valid and their initial ruling was valid, and also that the act aligns directly with the commerce clause Broad Implications - Set precedent that commerce clause is up to interpretation

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)

Legal Question - Was the President delegated legislative power unconstitutionally by Congress, which allowed him to regulate certain industries without providing a baseline of standards? Holding - Yes Legal Reasoning - Congress is not permitted to transfer essential legislative functions with which it is vested Broad Implications - Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce

non-delegation doctrine (Gundy v. United States)

Power once delegated cannot be redelegated

amendment enforcing powers of congress

South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)

dormant commerce clause

States can't do things that will have a negative impact on other states commerce or interstate commerce broadly

tax immunity doctrine

States can't use taxes as a weapon against the federal government (can't tax them in a way that would debilitate it)

which case best shows how judicial time lags behind political time?

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937)

Dual federalism

federal government and state governments are two coequal sovereigns

anti-commandeering doctrine

federal government can't tell states to do something if it is not an explicit power granted from the constitution

Cooperative federalism

state and federal government are partners but federal government has more power