AP GOV

how did rodregez violate the 14th amendment

Appellees brought this class action on behalf of school children said to be members of poor families who reside in school districts having a low property tax base, making the claim that the Texas system's reliance on local property taxation favors the more affluent and violates equal protection requirements because of substantial inter-district disparities in per-pupil expenditures resulting primarily from differences in the value of assessable property among the districts.

Arizona v.

Arizona passed a law SB 1070 Support OUr Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act a state law intended to increast he powers of local law enforcement that wanted to enforce federal immigration laws. made it a state misdemeanor crime for an illegal immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law; authorizes state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws; and penalized those found to be knowingly sheltering, hiring, and transporting illegal immigrants. The United States Justice Department filed a suit challenging the act as usurping th efederal governments authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal governments authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement

Supremacy Clause

Article VI of the Constitution, which makes the Constitution, national laws, and treaties supreme over state laws when the national government is acting within its constitutional limits.

A. Identify a constitutional clause that is common to both Bush v. Vera (1996) and Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Both cases concern the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

b) Explain how the difference in facts led to a different decision in both Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.

Brown was about the school system and how it made balcks believe they were inferior to whites and how the schools were not equal at all as there was often one teacher to teach students from 1st to eigth grade and rodriguz was about how schools recieved more money because the areas they were in had higher property values while those in the poor communities had higher property taxes but were unable to have close to the same funding as the schools in the richer areas this is why brown violated the equal protection caluse and rodriguez did not

Bush v. Vera (1996) ruling

Cheif Justice Rehnquist a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Texas redistricting plans were unconstitutional. Supporting its "strict scrutiny" approach, the Court noted that the proposed districts were highly irregular in shape, that their computerized design was significantly more sensitive to racial data, and that they lacked any semblance to pre-existing race-neutral districts. The Court also held that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the proposed districts would deprive minority groups of equal participation in the electoral political processes. Thus, the proposed districts violated the Voting Rights Act's "results" test prohibiting activity that "results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color." Finally, with respect to proposed district 18, the Court held that Texas deliberately designed it to hamper the local African-American minority's ability to elect representatives of their choice. This violated the Voting Rights Act's "nonretrogression" principle, prohibiting state action from obstructing a minority's ability to elect representatives of their choice.

c. Explain an action that Congress could take to respond to the Arizona v. United States decision if it disagreed with the decision.

Congress could tax the state on necessary resources to encourage it to work with Congress law. It could also not choose not to issue grants to the state.

c.C. Explain how the outcome in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez demonstrates how public policy regarding equality of opportunity is affected by federalism in the United States.

Federalism is the separation of power between the federal and state government. Want cooperative rederalism which is when state and federal government work together on issues. Hard to promote equality of opportunity because much power is left to the states who each have differing opinions. In the Common good constitutionalism article says CGC will favor a powerful presidency ruling over a powerful bureaucracy, where stats act through principles of administrative law's inner morality with a view to promoting solidarity and subsidiarity. beuracracy will be the strong hand of the federal governments legitimate rule. The state should be entrusted with the authority to protect the citizens from injustices in the market forces from employers who exploit ppl. Strong federal government limited power to states. state has authority to curb social and economic pretensions of those putting their own needs before the needs of the common good. In Rodriguez, the federal government determines it is not unconstitutional for the state government of texas to use property taxes to fund public schools, though it may leave the schools in less wealthy areas with significantly less funding which many viewed as the state discriminating against the poor and not giving them equal opportunities because the public schools in less wealthy districts are not receiving as much funding

Bush v. Vera (1996)

Following the 1990 census, Texas planned the creation of three additional congressional districts. Following the redistricting, registered voters challenged the plans as racial gerrymandering. A three-judge federal district court found the plans unconstitutional. The case moved to the Supreme Court on appeal. Do the Texas redistricting plans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

xplain how the facts of McCulloch v. Maryland and the facts of Arizona v. United States led to a similar holding in both cases.

In McCulloch v. Maryland court case it was said that the state could not tax a federal bank. And In Arizona v. United States, it was said that the state could not regulate immigration the way that it attempted to. In both cases, states attempted to wield power that constitutionally should belong to the national government. In CGC article says emphasis should be on specific human liberties and constraints of power are good as long as they benefit the common good. ALso says just authority in rulers is exercised for th good of subjects even if necessary even if it goes against the subjects own thoughts of what is best for them.

San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriguez

Rodriguez, on behalf of families from the San Antonio Independent School District, filed a class action lawsuit against the district and others in the state of Texas. Rodriguez argued that Texas' public education finance system was unconstitutional because it relied on property taxes to fund public elementary and secondary schools. Poor school districts did not have a vast property tax base and therefore were subject to inter-district funding disparities./no matter how high Edgewood raised property taxes, it would never have even close to the amount of funding as nearby, richer districts. Just because nearby districts like Alamo Heights had higher property valuations, their schools would always have more money. Even though Edgewood had higher property taxes, it was raising almost half the amount per-pupil of nearby affluent districts.

Brown v. Board of Education ruling

Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. The Supreme Court held that "separate but equal" facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children.

MuCulloh v Maryland (1819) ruling

States cannot interfere with the federal government when it uses its implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause to further its express constitutional powers. Facts The U.S. Congress created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. A year later, the Bank opened a banch in Baltimore, Maryland, where it carried out all the normal operations of a bank. Its legitimacy was based solely on the applicability of the U.S. Constitution to Maryland. In 1818, however, the Maryland legislature voted to impose a tax on all banks within the state that were not chartered by the legislature. The Second Bank of the United States refused to comply with the law, resulting in a lawsuit against its head, James William McCulloch. The state successfully argued on appeal to the state appellate court that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Consititution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank. In this unanimous decision, Marshall observed that the Second Bank was no different from the First Bank of the United States, of which the constitutionality had not been challenged. Echoing the decision in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, he also noted that the people rather than the states were responsible for ratifying the U.S. Constitution and thus taking away a measure of sovereignty from the states. He did not find it necessary to establish a textual basis in the Constitution that specifically addressed banks. The most notable section of Marshall's opinion concerned the Necessary and Proper Clause. He rejected the state's argument that this clause was confined to authorizing only laws that were absolutely essential to carrying out its enumerated powers. Marshall felt that a broader interpretation was warranted, since the clause was not placed among the limitations on Congressional authority and thus should be viewed as an expansion on its authority/ Pursuant to the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, Section 8), Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed powers not explicitly outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Marshall redefined "necessary" to mean "appropriate and legitimate," covering all methods for furthering objectives covered by the enumerated powers. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme and cannot be controlled by the states.

c.Explain how the decision in Bush v. Vera could affect the process of redistricting for congressional representation in other states.

States have the power to decide which method to use to draw district lines. The Constitution does not outline a specific process, leaving it up to the states. The Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Vera would force states to consider in their process a way to create districts without any consideration of race.

Rodregez what supreme court said

Supreme Court decided 5-4 to reverse the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Justice Lewis Powell delivered the opinion of the court argued that the Texas public education finance system did not discriminate against all poor people in the state, and therefore did not warrant scrutiny from the Court. Powell also contended that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to review the case because the Constitution does not grant individuals a fundamental right to education.[2]

MuCulloh v Maryland (1819)

Supreme court ruling that congress had implied powers under the necessary and proper cause of Article 1/In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax. The state appeals court held that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

The U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?Appellants stated an equal protection claim by alleging that North Carolina's reapportionment scheme was so irrational on its face that it could be understood only as an effort to segregate voters based on race, and that separation lacks sufficient justification.

5 a Identify a common constitutional principle used to make a ruling in both McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Arizona v. United States (2012).

The supremcary clause states that the central governments law will overpower state law. This is relevant to both McCulloch vs. Maryland and Arizona vs. United states as they both deal with conflict between state law and national law. In both cases, the supremacy clause was called upon to justify the central gocernments choice to overpower state policy.

Arizona ruling

United States Supreme Court holding that states may not implement their own immigration laws. The case concerned Arizona's immigration-related law SB 1070, enacted in 2010. At issue was whether federal immigration law preempts state immigration law. In a 5-3 decision, the court held that federal law preempted three provisions of Arizona's law:[1] The provision making it a state crime to reside in the country without legal permission The provision making it a state crime to work in the country without legal permission The provision allowing law enforcement officers to arrest individuals without a warrant based on probable cause of unlawful presence The court ruled that the first provision conflicted with federal provisions already in place, while the second and third provisions were preempted because they interfered with federal authority over immigration law. Background Chief Justice Roberts

Equal protection claue of 14th amendment

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. the constitutional guarantee that no person or group will be denied the protection under the law that is enjoyed by similar persons or groups.

a) rodreigez and brown

plantiffs argued that their 14th amendment right to equal protection was denied

B. Explain how the facts in both cases led to similar holdings.

the Supreme Court invalidated legislative districts on the basis that race was a factor in drawing the districts. The Court viewed these legislative districts as violations of the equal protection clause. In CGC authority is held in trust of community and exercised on behalf of community and groups in it not for benefit of individuals in government. The government should be serving the people and not harming them or trying to put their own selfish need(like the need to keep their positions) in front of the communities they serve.

Rodregez ruling

the United States Supreme Court held that property taxes could be used to fund public schools. The case concerned whether Texas' public education finance system violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The Supreme Court's decision in this case established that using property taxes to fund public schools did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Shaw v. Reno ruling

the court ruled in a 5-4 majority that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause and on the basis that it violated the fourteenth Amendment because it was drawn solely based on race.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

unanimously held that the racial segregation of children in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Brown claimed that Topeka's racial segregation violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because the city's black and white schools were not equal to each other and never could be. Overruled Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" doctrine and would eventually led to the desegregation of schools across the South/ African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were denied relief in the lower courts based on Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that racially segregated public facilities were legal so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal.