Unit 4 Quiz #1
Shelby Counter v Holder (2013)
(2013) Shelby county Alabama felt that the fact that there country and all counties in the united states that had to go through preclearance when it comes to voting laws was unconstitutional because voting laws are state issues and this it is discriminating towards certain counties. They claimed that because just they were racists in 1965 does not mean that they are still racists in 2013 and they should no longer have to get preclearance on voter laws from the attorney general or three judge panels of washington DC District court. It was a 5 to 4 decision for Shelby County and
US v. Lopez (1995)
A High School Senior was charged under a federal statute, Guns-Free School Zone Act of 1990 that forbade the possession of a firearm in a school zone knowingly. Lopez then argued that the act was not able to be passed under the Commerce Clause and thus Congress exceeded its power. In a 5-4 decision, the Court decided that carrying a gun on a campus is not an economic activity and therefore had nothing to do with commerce thus making it unconstitutional. This is an example of devolution and returning some power back to the states. Substantial effect must be economic in nature.
What is Congressional oversight and where does the power of oversight come from?
Congressional oversight is the power of Congress to oversee the executive branch. This power is an implied power derived from the Constitution and other rules from the House and Senate.
US v. Nixon (1973)
Considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.
US v. Morrison (2000)
Brzonkala sued Morrison under the Violence Against Women Act (an act providing remedy to victims of gender violence), but Morrison and Crawford claimed the Act was unconstitutional. Ultimately, the Court decided that Congress exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. This is significant because, essentially, Congress does not have the jurisdiction to regulate hate crimes. The Commerce Clause will support federal regulation of commercial or economic activity which has a substantial effect on interstate commerce or which in the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, but the effects of noneconomic activity can not be aggregated this way in order to fall under Commerce Clause power.
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
California passed the Compassionate Use Act allowing the use of Marijuana in a medical sense. The DEA then arrested multiple people under the Controlled Substance Act from Congress. They sued on the basis that that the Controlled Substance Act exceeded Congress's Commerce clause abilities and therefore should be unconstitutional. However, Justice Stevens delivered a majority opinion that stated Congress could regulate local Marijuana cultivation despite the state law as it could be part of a "class of activities" that has an effect on Interstate commerce.
Why has Congress become more gridlocked in recent years?
Congress has become more gridlocked due to a divided government and policy distance between the House and the Senate. The government shut down of 2017 is a prime example of government gridlock as the Houses could not make up their minds about immigration reforms - the Democrat and Republicans could not come to a conclusion on certain reforms; therefore, the government employees were on furlough until the issue was resolved. With the recent midterm election results, the Senate is controlled by the Republicans whereas the House is controlled by the Democrats. This is another issue for gridlock as it created a divided government in which the Houses will refuse to work together, resulting in nothing getting done.
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Filburn was a farmer that harvested 12 acres of wheat over his allotment granted to him by the Agricultural Adjustment Act. He argued that the extra 12 acres was for his own use and had no effect on interstate commerce. The Court states that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate activity within a single state, even if individual activity has an effect. Cumulative effects test.
Gibbons v. Ogen (1824)
Gibbons v. Ogden was a Supreme Court case dealing with interstate commerce. Gibbons won unanimously through his connection of the Interstate Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause. New York's law was overturned and Gibbons, along with other steamboat operators were able to participate in Interstate Commerce via waterways. Supports federal supremacy over state laws. Creation of the substantial effects test.
What are the different kinds of grants in aid and explain how each grant either empowers the states or the federal government.
Grants in aid are money given to the states from the federal government which compel the states to act in a certain way. Block Grants are money given to the states with a broad purpose // few strings attached. This empowers the states as they have almost full authority to decide how their money is spent. Categorical Grants are money given to the state with a specific purpose that includes restrictions on how to spend the money. This empowers the federal government as the states have to follow specific guidelines to receive the money. Project grants are money the states apply to before receiving the money. This empowers the federal government as the government may require specific things to be implemented / done in the states if they are to receive the money.
Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
Independent Businesses - felt that they should not have to purchase Obama Care or pay a "penalty" if you do not purchase it because it is unconstitutional to force citizens of the united states to make purchases of anything meaning the government cannot force you to partake in commerce although they do have the right to regulate commerce that takes place Sebelius - is the government's' person that was responsible for implementing Obama Care and she claimed that it was constitutional to because under the commerce clause it gives the legislative branch the ability to tax certain citizens and the court ruled that the "penalty" was actually much like a tax. it was not a penalty but a tax Citizens who are not paying for health insurance must pay a tax because regardless when they .need health care they would not be paying into it and causing the people with insurance costs' to go up because of the rising cost incurred by the health care providers - these costs get passed on to the paying customers.
Printz v. US (1997)
Jay Printz and Richard Mack were two county sheriffs that challenged the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that was enacted in their county. The SC declared that the Act was unconstitutional as it was not within Congress' jurisdiction and it violated the anti-commandeering doctrine, which forbid the federal government from forcing local law enforcement to carry out their laws, and the tenth amendment.
Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
Massachusetts among other states petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases of new motor vehicles through the Clean Air Act. The EPA denied it on the basis that the Act does not allow them to regulate greenhouse gases. This became the issue of the case - if the EPA could decline to issuing emission standards and if the Clean Air Act allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. The court in a 5-4 for decision decided that they could not decline to issue emission standards and that the Clean Air Act did allow the regulation of greenhouse gases. Stevens delivered the majority stating while the CAA did not specifically state carbon emissions it was written in a way so the act would not become obsolete and could expand. He continued stating that the EPA should not delay and should make a decision if they wish to not provide carbon emission regulation on whether or not it has an effect on global warming.
Why has the power in leaders of Congress diminished in recent years?
Paul Ryan, our current Speaker of the House, is stepping down from power. After Vietnam and Watergate, so many Congressional reforms had changed the House in order to centralize power. Congressional reforms passed in the 70's essentially put the Speaker on a short leash and held accountable. The reforms made is easy for members to take down a Speaker if he were corrupt. With the era of reforms, partisan polarization became more apparent in Congress, and with the Speaker being held more accountable, they were caught in the crosssfire of the Democrats and Republicans. The recent big spending budget deal is another reason Paul Ryan had decided to leave. The Freedom Caucus was a stubborn and threatening group in Congress that oust Speakers who are empathetic to Democrats or who attempt to pass legislation that does not fully support the campaigns of Republicans.
What are police powers?
Powers reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment. It gives the state government the power to regulate behavior and enforce order to protect health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public. The states are also allowed to compel obedience to the laws they see fit as long as they do not infringe upon the constitutional and fundamental rights of the people. Some examples of this are state mandated restaurant inspections and clean drinking water.
How have Presidents responded to the requirements of the War Powers Resolution? Give at least two specific examples.
Presidents have tended to ignore/invalidate the provisions within the Act. Ronald Reagan committed troops to El Salvador without giving advanced notice to Congress in 1981. President Clinton continued a bombing campaign in 1999 in Kosovo past the 60 day time limit for gaining Congressional approval.
How has the Supreme Court defined the scope of the commerce clause through the following court cases? List the major tests created by the court and the cases that created them.
The
Explain the powers granted to the President in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the 2001 AUMF.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed in 1964 and gave President Lyndon B. Johnson power to "take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to further prevent aggression." The vague wording was intended to give the President a broad scope of authority and all functional power to enact war in Vietnam without officially declaring war. The 2001 Authorization of Military Force given to President Bush authorized the president to use armed forces in a necessary and approriate manner against the parties responsible for 9/11 and any attacks that was associated with them. The wording was vague enough to allow President Obama to use it in pursuit of ISIS, an organization that did not exist at the time of the attacks.
Where does the President get the power to create executive orders? What is prosecutorial discretion?
The President gets the power to create executive orders from the broad nature of Article 2 in the Constitution, making it an implied power of the executive(executive orders are subject to judicial review). The Supreme Court also has ruled that presidential executive orders must be supported by the Constitution, or supported by a delegation of power from Congress. Prosecutorial discretion is the ability of the President to not enforce laws his administration does not agree with. A modern example of this is the "Holder memorandum," where President Obama and his administration announced to attorneys within the US to decline to impose criminal charges that would trigger automatic minimum sentences for non-violent, low level drug offenders.
When was the War Powers Resolution Act passed and what are the requirements it lays out for a President who wants to commit troops?
The War Powers Resolution Act was passed in 1973 by Congress. It required the President to give Congress a 48 hours notice before committing troops and the President then has 60 days to gain Congressional approval in a force of military authorization or a declaration of war. There is also a 30 day withdrawl period if no approval was gained.
Where does the filibuster come from and how has it changed over time? What can be filibustered today and what cannot? How can a filibuster be ended?
The filibuster originated in the 1850's in Congress as a way for minority groups in Congress to be heard. However, the filibuster was mainly used by the Senate to hold the floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill. When the United States eventually expanded, and increased the size of the House dramatically, new rules were set in place that limited the debate in the House, so it was mainly used by the Senate. Later, in 1917, the Senators adopted Rule 22 by the urging of President Woodrow Wilson which allowed a filibuster to end with a 2/3 majority vote, known as a "cloture". Even with this rule, however, it was still extremely difficult to gain a majority vote to end the filibuster. After 1975, the Rule was changed to allow a cloture with a 3/5 majority vote. In recent years, the filibuster has been used increasingly to prevent votes on bills. Today, any bill can be filibustered as long as it is not a reconciliation bill or a bill that already has a majority approval. Furthermore, any senate leader can trigger a "nuclear option" to end a filibuster. Senator Harry Reid used this option to end a filibuster regarding the cabinet member nominees and federal judges.
Where does the power of executive privilege come from?
The power of executive privilege comes from Article 2 in the Constitution. Although it is not explicitly mentioned, the Supreme Court has ruled that executive privilege is derived from the Separation of Powers doctrine. This was upheld in US v. Nixon (1974), where the Court established guidelines for when executive privilege is allowed to be used. Additionally, some consider executive privilege to originate from common law. President George Washington did set the precedent for executive privilege during his time in office when he used in in relation to Jay's Treaty. He also stated that executive privilege is allowed to be used unless the other party shows sufficient evidence that there is presidential material that is essential to justice in a case.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)
The president may not seize factories during wartime without explicit congressional authority even when they are threatened by a strike. Jackson's three prong concurrence
Heart of Atlanta v. US (1964)
Title ll of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 prohibited racial discrimination in places of public accommodation if their operations affected commerce. The Heart of Atlanta Motel refused service to African Americans. They Hotel sued claiming Congress exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause by not allowing places of public accommodation to choose their own customers. However, the Supreme Court ruled that given that the Heart of Atlanta Motel was located right next to an interstate highway, it had a direct effect on interstate commerce and therefore falls under Congress' power.