Constitutional Law Final Kilwein POLS 313 WVU

Levels of Impact of Constitutional Interpretation

-Decision Level (What the facts and the outcomes of the cases were?) -Constitution and Legal Level (What does this case do to the law, the constitution?) -Social Political Economic Level (What was the societal, economic, or political impacts of this case?)

Judicial Roles

-Mechanistic (Judges aren't political actors, but judicial robots. Decide strictly based on laws.) -Judicial Realism (There are multiple different answers. There is no just right or wrong.) -Self-Restraintist (You know there isn't always an answer. When I rule, you know my past.) -Activist (I am a political actor. I am one of the political bodies of government.)

1) Alden v. Maine, 2) College Savings Bank v. Florida, 3) Florida v. College Savings Bank (1999, Rehnquist)

1) State employees suing a state. 2&3) Business sues state for copyright. The Private AG Concept: Why don't we have private citizens sue on behalf of the federal government? The court rules congress has vast powers but not ALL power. You can't deputize citizens if you want to regulate (Maine) your federal government get off your butt and do this.

Steps to the Supreme Court Opinion

1. Appeal to the Court (Write a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court about your case.) 2. Briefing (Clerks read cases and select which cases each justice chooses.) 3. Discussion (Of the selected cases, each justice chooses the ones they'd like to bring before their fellow Justices.) 4. The Initial Conference (Four of the nine justices need to agree to take a suggested case in order for the court to hear it.) 5. File a New Brief (Merit-based brief, trying to sway them to your side.) 6. Oral Arguments (Arguments before the bench, 1 hour total. 30 minutes per side.) 7. The Second Conference (Talking about the case and voting, trying to reach a majority 5-4.) 8. Opinion Assigning and Writing (Chief Justice, if in majority, will assign the opinion to someone on the majority side based on legal expertise.) 9. Public Release of the Opinion 10. Case is Remanded (Returned to the lower court from which it came.)

Reasonableness Standard

A test which asks whether the decisions made were legitimate and designed to remedy a certain issue under the circumstances at the time as well as have a reasonable amount of support.

Rasul v. Bush (2004, Rehnquist)

2 Australians and 12 Kuwaitis captured during the time of war on terror and they were sent to Guantanamo Bay. Therefore when their families went to file a suit, the courts kept saying they lack jurisdiction because the detainees are in Guantanamo and don't have a right to Habeas Corpus. The Court decides the US Court system can try these captives.

Vevel v. Nixon (1969, Burger)

A case brought before the Court by a professor saying that the war of Vietnam was unconstitutional because it wasn't declared. The court couldn't take this case because even though they agreed it was unconstitutional, they wouldn't interfere because it bring a political questions argument taking on both Congress and the President as well as not being able to offer a remedy if the case was decided.

Ripeness

A case in which the two parties have exhausted every avenue and have no other judicial option other than coming before the Supreme Court. (Ex. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936))

Political Question Doctrine

A case, if decided would create an embarrassing confrontation with the two other branches of government potentially causing a loss of power for the court.

Frothingham v. Mellon (1923, Taft)

A childless woman from MA, argues you are taking my taxes for the Maternal Healthcare Bill without Due Process. The Court ruled that her taxes are so wide spread throughout the state of MA that we cannot tell exactly where your money goes. Therefore, you lack standing to take this to the Court.

Textual Argument

A contract between the people and its government. What do the words in front of us mean now? Hugo Black preferred this method. It is objective and reliant on text and also allows for flexibility and growth as well as being understandable. However, the Constitution is ambiguous and unclear.

Appellate Court

A court having jurisdiction to review cases and issues that were originally tried in lower courts.

Marbury v. Madison (1803, Marshall)

A landmark case which Marshall establishes Judicial Review. In his ruling, he finds the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional (Issuing Writs of Mandamus in Original Jurisdiction wasn't a power given to the court in the Constitution). Marshall points out that the act written by Congress was Unconstitutional and that the Constitution is Supreme. Therefore, we the court have the ability to rule any law given by Congress or the President as Unconstitutional.

Concurrent Power Theory

A power or good in which both federal and state governments can regulate.

South Pacific Railroad v. Arizona (1945, Stone)

A question of state police police powers, a states ability to do whats best for its citizens. Limits the number of cars on a train. Ruled against the Arizona limit and says the trains coming into Arizona would have to comply affecting commerce nationwide. Money needed for new trains was too big of a burden on Arizona commerce.

Federalism

A sharing of power between National and Subnational governments in a governmental system. Does NOT mean that they are co-equal.

The Prize Cases (1863, Taney)

Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War ordered a confiscation of goods from ships as he tried to put pressure on the south from having Southern ships blocked. A blockade, under international law, is only legal when there is a war. However, Congress didn't declare war therefore they argued the blockade was unconstitutional. The Court sided with the President and said the blockade was constitutional. "The president was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself."

DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974, Burger)

Affirmative Action for Washington School of Law. While the case is being waited on to be taken from the court, Washington admits Defunis as 1L and lets him continue his education. However, the case hits the floor in Defunis' 3L and Washington will allow him to graduate therefore the case is moot.

Korematsu v. US (1944, Stone)

After Pearl Harbor, the US required Japanese Americans to move to camps as a matter of national security. The Court ruled that this was a matter of national security and allowed the United States to harbor Japanese Americans in campus until the war settled.

Boumediene v. Bush (2008, Roberts)

Al Qaeda sympathizers were caught by Bosnia police and gave them to the US to deal with. The small question was do they get individual due process but the bigger question is how much Congress can tell SCOTUS to do something. Congress as the case was making its way up to the supreme court passed the Detainee Treatment Act that striped federal courts of hearing habeas corpus petitions for Guantanamo prisoners. Permitted only the DC circuit to hear it. The court made a note that this act doesn't apply to cases currently being heard. Then the military commissions act fully stripped them from hearing even pending cases. The SCOTUS granted cert even though it couldn't go up through the court. The writ said that habeas corpus extends to members at Guantanamo. However, Congress can suspend habeas corpus only if there is immediate rebellion or invasion of the US potentially harming citizens. They have a right to due process but only through military trial.

Judicial Review

Allows the court to determine the constitutionality of laws.

Flast v. Cohen (1968, Warren)

Appellants including Flast brought the case to the Supreme Court to argue about tax spending on supplies for private, religious schools. The court ruled they did have standing. In the opinion Warren establishes a two taxpayer standing rule. 1) The taxpayer must challenge the constitutionality only of exercises under the taxing and spending clause of the Constitution. 2) The moving party must allege that Congress acted beyond the scope of a particular constitutional provision.

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936, Hughes)

Brandeis creates the Ashwander rules in this decision (The court attempts to say here's what we do when we rule a certain way). The decision bans advisory opinions (the court can decide on a case before it actually happens) and rules the case not ripe because the court can't anticipate a Constitutional question before it happens.

De Jure

By Law

Five Constitutional Arguments

Arguments made by Justices to convince the public that this is the best way to operate.

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995, Rehnquist)

Arkansas wanted to enact term limits but they couldn't do that so they prohibited people from access to the ballot if they've served longer than a certain amount of time. States are unable to add qualifications onto Constitutional requirements for Congress it is only allowed to be changed at a national level. Changes the 10th amendment for states (Limits it).

Eneumerated Powers

Article 1 Section 1 grants national power to Congress.

Congressional Power to War

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution allows for Congress to declare war.

Presidential Power to War

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution allows for the president to command the army and the navy and prosecute war.

Cases and Controversies

Article III Section II in the Constitution, which requires an actual dispute between parties having adverse legal interests and a constitutional requirement in order to invoke a federal court to act.

Supremacy Clause

Article VI Section II 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.

Prudential Argument (Balancing)

Balancing that the Constitution gives rights to both individuals, as well as the opposing party (government). This approach normally sides with the government on issues. Felix Frankfurter preferred this argument.

9th Amendment

Citizens entitled to rights not listed in the Constitution.

Contract Clause

Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 10) originally intended to prohibit state governments from modifying contracts made between individuals; for a while interpreted as prohibiting state governments from taking actions that adversely affect property rights; no longer interpreted so broadly and no longer constrains state governments from exercising their police powers.

Necessary and Proper Clause

Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) setting forth the implied powers of Congress. It states that Congress, in addition to its express powers, has the right to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out all powers the Constitution vests in the national government.

Clinton v. Jones (1997, Rehnquist)

Clinton argued that he should have immunity for the time being because of separation of powers and executive privilege. They say that the president deserves our respect however he cannot be placed above the law.

Colgrove v. Green (1946, Stone)

Colgrove said that the recent reapportionment of voting districts is biased against urban voting centers. He argues 14th amendment equal protection because an urban vote is worth less than a rural vote. Frankfurter says that this isn't a case the court can decide because it deals with the specific power of reapportionment given specifically to the legislative branch in the constitution and cannot be enforced by the courts.

Doctoral Argument (Precedent)

Common-Law approach. The court shouldn't be making groundbreaking decisions, there should be small shifts for change overtime by looking back at prior rulings and adjusting them gradually. Less political and more legal. However, this would work if justices were apolitical actors. This argument works better in non-controversial settings.

Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8)

Congress can regulate trade between nations, between states, and among Indian tribes.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, Katzenbach v. McClung (1964, Warren)

Congress looked to decrease racism and discrimination in both hotels and restaurants. Rely on equal protection. Both places had significant income with commerce and the court ruled it may regulate commerce because there was rational bias. *One of the last federal leaning cases dealing with commerce.

National League of Cities v. Usury (1976, Burger)

Congress passed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The purpose of the amendments was to regulate minimum wage and overtime pay for state and local government employees. The National League of Cities, as well as several states and cities, challenged the constitutionality of the amendments. The court ruled that the 10th amendment prohibits Congress from regulating the labor market of state employees.

US v. Lopez (1995, Rehnquist)

Congress passes a gun free zone act for schools. Makes it a crime to carry guns within 1000 ft. of a school. Lopez convicted of carrying a gun within 1000 feet and the court rules that acting like doing this is a direct affect on commerce is absolutely a stretch. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005, Rehnquist)

Congress' power to regulate commerce allows them to regulate the use of marijuana, including when used as medicine under the California Compassionate Use Act.

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985, Burger)

Contradicts NLC ruling and allows Congress to regulate employee pay because it is both private sector and public.

Mootness

Criteria used by the court in which the argument at hand has been organically resolved by a change of state of a party or if the argument is settled beforehand. (ex. Defunis v. Odegaurd (1974))

Clinton v. New York City (1998, Rehnquist)

Deals with the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. It gives the president the ability to veto a specific section of a budget bill. Pro Conservative Bill. President Clinton tests it by vetoing the budget for potato farmers in the state of New York. The court rules that isn't a power given to the president in the Constitution and deems the Act unconstitutional.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942, Stone)

Filburn (farmer) doubled what he wanted to grow however it was against department of agriculture rules. Filburn argues its intrastate because he's feeding it to his own cows. The court rules that under the commerce clause congress can say you can't grow whatever no matter what its for. Its all commerce.

Eakin v. Raub (1825, Gibson)

Gibson dissents on the decision that side's with Marshall's Judicial Review and says that Judicial Review is a clear overstepping onto another body of the government. I'm not saying the Constitution isn't Supreme, but it isn't the duty of the court to act politically when it is their job to review the law.

De Facto

In Fact

Articles of Confederation

States rights manifesto (1st Constitution). A document giving the national power the weakest in the history of ever.

Standing

Legitimate justification for bringing a case to the court. Do you have a stake in the game? (Ex. Frothingham v. Mellon (1923))

Ex Parte Milligan (1866, Chase)

Lincoln declares Marital Law (Civil Liberties are suspended) as well as suspending Habeas Corpus (right to a fair trial) therefore he was tried in Military Court and sentenced to death. The Court ruled it was unconstitutional only after the war was over. Represents SCOTUS hangover.

Martin v. Hunter (1816, Marshall)

Lord Fairfax owned land in Virginia and sided with the crown in the war. Dies and gives the land to Martin, Denny then attempts to sell it to the Marshall brothers. VA took his land and gives it to Hunter. Federal government enacted a law that allowed for people on the side of the crown to keep their land and not be discriminated against. This brings us to the Judiciary Act of 1789 which says SCOTUS has the right to review any state treaty or constitution. John Marshall says that VA is in violation of a federal treaty and the constitution and says you must give it back to the original owner. Hunter says that the VA Supreme Court ruled differently and he went back to the VASC and made an argument to challenge the validity of the Supreme Court. Justice Story writes the opinion rejecting the compact theory and stating the Constitution is supreme over all state constitutions and the states must abide by the federal constitution as well as their own. Justice Story ( VASC Chief Justice) is Marshall enemy.

Opinions

Majority: Written by select justice from the Chief Concurring: Written by a member of the majority but they disagree with the legal logic. Dissenting: Written by a justice in the minority. They write where the court got it wrong.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819, Marshall)

Maryland tries to tax the federal bank because they don't want them taking business within the state of Maryland. McCulloch says I'm not paying the tax and then Maryland takes him to the state Supreme Court as they obviously rule in favor of Maryland. Maryland argues that where does the Constitution say that we have the right to a national bank and also, where's it say we can't tax it? Marshall rules on the side of McCulloch saying the Constitution is broad and allows itself to be adjusted as problems arise but the bank is necessary and proper and he says that the compact theory is wrong you, Maryland, don't have the power its the people who have the power. Marshall then says the tax is unconstitutional because the Supremacy Clause.

Original Jurisdiction in the Supreme Court

Suits between states, or cases involving ambassadors or public ministers.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824, Marshall)

New York gave exclusive rights to steamboats on the Hudson River, thus creating a monopoly. Legislature determined which steamboat operators got New York business (Ogden). Gibbons had federal license to transport from New Jersey to New York, so he did even though it violated state law. Ogden argued New York state law gave exclusive rights to transport over Gibbons. However, Gibbons argued that since he has federal license and that the federal government was given the commerce clause to regulate interstate commerce. He also argued for the Supremacy Clause which made laws passed by federal government supreme over state laws. The court ruled in a unanimous decision that NY State Law was in violation of the Supremacy Clause and that means its in violation of the Commerce Clause. Marshall used the case to define that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between states and that commerce involves the transportation methods of goods. Johnson concurs and writes the dominant power theory.

Dominant Power Theory

Once the federal government is given a power by the Constitution that is it.

Writ of Certiorari

Order by the Supreme Court directing a lower court to send up the records of a case for review.

Fletcher v. Peck (1810)

Supreme Court case that established the Court's power to invalidate state laws contrary to the Constitution; in this case, the Court prevented Georgia from rescinding a land grant even though it was fraudulently made.

Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852, Taney)

Pennsylvania forced out of state ship pilots to hire a Pennsylvania pilot to dock the ship. If they refused they were forced to pay a fee of an equal amount. Cooley challenges that Congress can't give up its powers to the states to regulate harbor. Since Congress can't give up power its unconstitutional. Commerce is navigation and navigation is commerce Taney ruled. Regulation of commerce is the regulating of pilots. Navigation however can be a concurrent power (Federal and State governments can BOTH regulate this power). It is permissible for Congress to delegate its power to state and local governments if not requiring uniform legislation. Rejects dominant theory. States Congressional act of 1789 says states may enact until further legislations provisions can be made by congress. This allows for Curtis to argue for concurrent powers. Curtis also enacts reasonableness standard (Is there a reasonable amount of support for the argument congress is making).

Powell v. McCormack (1969, Warren)

Powell is elected, comes to Washington, Congress tells him you can't take your seat and do your job. They can't block him from taking his seat. In Article 1 Section 2, Congress members can serve Age, Citizenship, and Residency. Federal government argues speech and debate clause and Article 1 Section 5 and that it allows both houses to be the judges of its elections and members and they say the court can't control what comes into Congress. The case took so long Powell was reelected in '68 anyway and therefore had to go ahead and serve.

Executive Privilege

Powers or privileges the president has in order to effectively do his or HER job.

1973 War Powers Act

President must notify Congress in 48 Hours of battle & Congress must approve if in war zone for 60 days with a 30 day extension. Allows president to use emergency powers.

Federalist in Contract Clause

Private Property Liberty of Contract Natural Rights

AntiFederalists in Contract Clause

Public Interest State Police Powers Legislative Supremacy

Threshold Issue Questions

Questions the Court is going to ask you about your case. Douglas wanted to do away with threshold questions.

Structural Argument (Most Modernistic Approach)

Recognizes that the Constitution is flawed, but we should keep some things. The Constitution is here to protect minority rights and also the government should be prominent but not strong enough to over affect an individual. Big Picture.

Dormant Commerce Power

Restraint imposed on the states by the commerce clause even in the absence of national legislation.

Luther v. Borden (1849, Taney)

Rhode Island still had an archaic form of government passed down from the crown. Luther and a group of others rebel (Dorrs Revolution) to form a democratic form of state government. Dorr leads his military to break into a state armory while Rhode Island declares Martial Law. The Court writes there's nothing they can do about it because it is Congress' job to provide a republican form of government.

State Police Powers

State authority which includes all laws designed to promote public order and secure the safety and morals of the citizens.

Shreveport Case (1914, White)

State of TX v. State of LA. Texas railroad company will charge less if you travel within the state even though its shorter to deliver to Louisiana. The Court ruled you cannot discriminate against buyers because they are of a different state.

Mayor of New York v. Miln (1837)

Ruled that the New York state could use its police force to inspect the health of arriving immigrants. They rule this isn't a regulation of commerce but a regulation of police.

Federalists and Necessary & Proper

Saw necessary and proper as a positive grant of power to the national government.

Sierra Club v. Morton (1972, Burger)

Sought to prevent Disney from buying portion of federal forrest. Sierra Club failed to show that any of its members had suffered or would suffer injury as a result of the defendants' actions. No standing = No argument.

Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

Supreme Court case that sustained Dartmouth University's original charter against changes proposed by the New Hampshire state legislature, thereby protecting corporations from domination by state governments.

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)

Supreme Court ruled that a charter granted by a State to a company cannot work to the disadvantage of the public. A State could not make laws infringing on the charters of private organizations. The Charles River Bridge Company protested when the Warren Bridge Company was authorized in 1828 to build a free bridge where it had been chartered to operate a toll bridge in 1785. The court ruled that the Charles River Company was not granted a monopoly right in their charter, and the Warren Company could build its bridge. Began the legal concept that private companies cannot injure the public welfare.

Swift v. US (1905, Fuller)

Swift meatpacking company started a monopoly and they didn't want regulated. The court ruled that there's a current of commerce, its here then its there, it affects business everywhere.

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000, Rehnquist)

Takes to the supreme court on the basis of biasing against someone for age. They argue that the 14th amendment equal protection should protect such person from being discriminated against in the workplace. The court rules that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to age, just discrete minorities.

US v Locke (2000, Rehnquist)

The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 severely affected the environment in the northwestern United States. The state of Washington passed a law that would regulate the type of vessels that were allowed to drop anchor in the ports of Washington state. The United States Attorney General, Janet Reno filed charges against Washington for being in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The case reached the Supreme Court of the United States on December 7, 1999. The courts upheld the United States' right to control interstate commerce, and that the state legislature of Washington did not have the authority to pass a law that had any bearing on interstate commerce.

Baker v. Carr (1962, Warren)

The case deals with the 1901 reapportionment law in the state of Tennessee and that though the law was passed it was ignored and didn't account for population shifts. Baker and other residents took it to the supreme court and argued the 14th amendment equal protection because not everyone gets a same amount of a vote. The court rules that they can take this case and rule in favor of the state of Tennessee to accept the law and to reapportion seats.

Bush v. Gore (2000, Rehnquist)

The United States Supreme Court ruled the Florida recount be stopped 20 days after the election. A recount of only some ballots violated the Constitution's equal protection clause. The SCOTUS allowed Florida to make the final decision and the state of Florida decided to give up the recount and Gore conceded.

Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus (1978)

The court declared a state law unconstitutional under the contracts clause because the state regulation of private pension funds altered significantly the contractual obligations of employers under previously existing private, unregulated pension funds.

U.S. Trust Co. v. New Jersey

The court held the retroactive repeal of the state's covenant, which prohibited the use of toll revenues for anything other than paying back the bond holders, was a violation of the contracts clause. Government interference with its own contracts is only constitutional if it is reasonable and necessary.

Justiciability

The courts ability to give a remedy given they take the case and decide. (Ex. Vevel v. Nixon (1969))

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United Separation of Church and State (1982, Burger)

The federal government had a surplus military hospital in Phoenixville, PA and had land in-between Valley Forge Christian College. They didn't want it and they gave it to the college for free. The court ruled AUSCS had a lack of standing showing that it didn't directly harm them.

Reno v. Condon (2000, Rehnquist)

The federal government sets a law that says states can't sell DMV information to retailers. The national government's authority to regulate interstate commerce extends to restrictions on how states gather, circulate, or sell certain information about citizens.

Compact Theory of Government

The idea that the Constitution was a constructed between the states, therefore the Constitution is an agreement between the states and not the people. Suggests all the power lies within the states and not the people.

Historical Argument (Original Intent)

The intentions of the framers through diaries, letters, and scholarly writings. When we are addressed with a problem not directly answered through the Constitution, what did the framers want? Brennan argued this eliminates the ability to rule on the side of the people.

Federalist View of Government

The nation came together as a nation body politically. The people wanted this, WE THE PEOPLE control the government not the states.

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Printz v. United States (1997, Rehnquist)

Until the technology was up for the Brady Handgun Bill, Congress delegated background checks to states. However, guns are commerce and Printz says this is a violation of state sovereignty. The court sides with Printz and says that Congress cannot force states to do this and hold up commerce.

US v. Nixon (1974, Burger)

The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon argued that he had executive privilege and didn't have to present the tapes to the court. However, the court said that the president still has to obey the law, he can't use executive privilege to avoid criminal proceedings. They add Article 3 gives SCOTUS the power to review the president.

Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934)

The state of Minnesota passes a law that gives people an extended period of time to pay off their mortgages however, though sanctity of contracts in the US Constitution, it is in the emergency of the people that this isn't a time for conditions, you can do state police powers in an emergency can violate a contract.

US v. Morrison (2000, Rehnquist)

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress' commerce clause power. With Lopez v. United States, two recent cases checking commerce clause growth of federal power and rule in favor of states and rule against the federal governments power to regulate commerce.

AntiFederalists and Necessary & Proper

They see enumerated powers and necessary and proper as a negative grant of federal power such as the national government only being able to act when something is necessary in a sense of an emergency. Therefore, the states can act at any other time.

Cohens v. Virginia (1821, Marshall)

Two brothers of Virginia went to a federally approved DC Lottery place and purchased tickets and sold them in Virginia. Found guilty of gambling. They wrote a writ of error to SCOTUS saying that since the lottery tickets were federal law then federal law trumps state law. Roane says that all 50 states can interpret the constitution a different way and Marshall rules and says that there is ONE interpretation for the Constitution and that's through us. He ruled that the Supreme Court could review a state court's decision that concerned powers of the federal government. However, in the end they opted with the state of VA in the prosecution of the Cohen Brothers. Dealt with the 11th amendment about people of a different state bringing suits against the state the crime was in.

Logical Nexus Test

You must show the court two things before coming before them. 1) You have to show there is standing between you and the Congressional Act. 2) The taxpayer has to show "standing and constitutional infringement" on the persons wanting to charge.