ConLaw Flashcards
Concern with the federal budget deficit, colors and acted a national property tax on all real property interest within the United States. A fixed rate is applied uniformly throughout the United States to the fair market value of these interests. Is this text constitutional?
No, because of article 1, section 9 of the constitution, concerning direct taxes. Attacks on real property interest is undisputably a direct tax. To satisfy the apportionment rule, a state with twice the population of another state would have to pay twice the tax, even if the more populous states share of the national tax base for smaller. Here, because the real property tax is not in proportion to the population of each state it would run a foul of article 1 section 9
After a prominent senator is accused of excepting bribes from commercial gaining lobbyists in exchange for a promise to vote in favor of land-based casinos in a state, I congressional committees assigned to investigate the alleged misconduct. Within the course of the investigation the committee 60 question Senator at a fellow senator from the same state as EQ senator. Send her ex is subpoenaed to appear before the Congressional committee without the presence of counsel to testify on whether he ever saw The accused Senator except money from a gaming lobbyist. Senator ask fails to appear before the Congressional committee and is immediately cited for contempt. Is the citation of Senator ask for contempt valid?
No because Senator ask did not receive procedural due process. The necessary and proper clause allows Congress broad authority to conduct investigations incident to its power to legislate. While a subpoenaed witness who fails to appear before Congress or refuses to answer questions maybe cited for contempt, the witness is entitled to certain procedural due process rights, including the presence of counsel.
Congress and acted a statue that required a state to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by students and it’s instructional programs. The statue was enacted in response to Congress is concerned that public school students whose native language is not English for hampered in their ability to learn because classroom instruction was almost exclusively presented in English, and that estates failure to take action to address this issue resulted in the denial of equal educational opportunities to students on the basis of their race or national origin. Which constitutes the best source of constitutional authority for the statute?
Section 5 of the 14th amendment.
The plaintiff was born in a foreign country but came to the United States as a child and became a naturalized citizen. Subsequently, the plaintiff returned to her country of birth and voted in a national election for prime minister there. When the plaintiff sought to renew her U.S. passport in order to return to the United States, her application was denied by the State Department. The State Department determined that the plaintiff was a nonresident alien and was therefore not entitled to a passport. The State Department relied on a federal law stating that a United States citizen who votes in a foreign political election forfeits his United States citizenship. The plaintiff filed an action in federal court for a declaratory judgment that she is a citizen of the United States. Should the plaintiff prevail?
Yes, because Congress may not take away a person’s citizenship.
The protection of national citizenship in Clause I of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents Congress from taking away a person’s citizenship without her consent, unless that citizenship was obtained by fraud or in bad faith. Under these facts, plaintiff did not consent to the taking away of her citizenship. In addition, the facts do not indicate that the plaintiff obtained her citizenship by fraud or in bad faith.
Congress enacted a law establishing a federal life insurance exchange under which United States citizens and residents, regardless of age, can acquire affordable life insurance. Although United States citizens are not subject to a residency requirement in order to participate in the exchange, resident aliens are required to have lived in the United States for at least five years to be eligible. A resident alien who has lived in the United States for four years has filed suit in federal court, claiming an equal protection violation. The government has asserted only that the law is rationally related to a government interest, and the court has indicated that it agrees. Is the resident alien likely to prevail?
No, because Congress has plenary power over aliens under Article I of the Constitution.
A classification based on alienage is subject to a different standard depending on whether the action is taken by the state or by the federal government. Courts will generally apply the strict scrutiny test and strike down state-based laws that discriminate against resident aliens for lack of U.S. citizenship. In contrast, Congress has plenary power over aliens under Article I, and the power to expel or exclude aliens is a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control. Therefore, a federal alienage classification is likely valid unless it is deemed arbitrary and unreasonable. Here, the government proved that the law was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest and thus the resident alien’s claim will fail.
In order to save money, a state adopted a law restricting voting times and reducing the number of polling sites on Election Day. The law did not significantly impact the ability of voters to cast their ballots. The law applied to all state, local, and federal elections occurring on Election Day. Does Congress have the authority to override this law?
Yes, because the state law regulates federal elections.
The Elections Clause explicitly empowers Congress to override state laws concerning federal elections. Here, the legislation attempts to regulate the federal election process by limiting voting times and polling sites as applied to federal elections, and Congress has the power to override such legislation.
A state owned and operated a silver processing plant located within the state. Because a recent war led to a reduction in the availability of the silver ore as well as a vast increase in the price for silver, the state enacted a statute requiring that the plant sell the processed silver to residents of other states only if there were no outstanding orders from residents within the state. An out-of-state resident who lived closer to the processing plant than any such plant in his own state was prevented from purchasing silver from the plant due to the statute. He sued to have the statute struck down. Should the court strike down the statute?
No, because the state owns and operates the metal plant.
A state law discriminates against out-of-state commerce if it protects local economic interests at the expense of out-of-state competitors. A state may behave in a discriminatory fashion if it is acting as a market participant (buyer or seller), as opposed to a market regulator. If the state is a market participant, it may favor local commerce or discriminate against non-resident commerce as can any private business. Here, because the state owns and operates the processing plant, the state is acting as a market participant and can therefore discriminate against out-of-state commerce.
There is a federal policy to encourage local recycling. A municipality passed an ordinance to enhance the processing of solid waste and improve recycling within its jurisdiction. The municipality required all solid waste to be brought to a transfer station owned by the municipality. Anyone who brought solid waste to the transfer station was charged a “tipping fee.” In addition, the municipality required each commercial trash hauler to purchase a permit in order to collect solid waste in the municipality. The combined cost of the “tipping fee” and the permit was fixed at an amount to ensure that the municipality did not lose money in operating the transfer station. Prior to the enactment of the ordinance, a local corporation had collected solid waste in the municipality and delivered it to an out-of-state facility, which charged much less that the combined cost of the fee and permit. The corporation filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the municipal ordinance. The court ruled in favor of the municipality. Is the court’s ruling correct?
Yes, because the transfer station is owned by the municipality.
The ordinance discriminates against the out-of-state facility and in favor of the local transfer station. Because it deals with a traditional local government function (i.e., trash removal), however, such discrimination is permitted under the Dormant Commerce Clause.
A state statute requires out-of-state breweries to sell beer through in-state distributors. The state adopted this law in order to enforce its prohibition on the possession and consumption of alcohol by minors and to ensure that state alcohol taxes were paid. In-state breweries may sell their beer directly to consumers. An out-of-state brewery has challenged this statute as unconstitutional. Should the court uphold this statute?
No, because the statute violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.
A state statute violates the Dormant Commerce Clause if it discriminates against out-of-state commerce. The statute in question places a restriction on out-of-state breweries that is not placed on in-state breweries. Accordingly, this statute discriminates against out-of-state breweries and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.
A student joined a small national organization during her freshman year of college after several of her friends, who were active in the organization, told her about the organization’s annual all-expense paid ski trip for its card-carrying members. The student attended a recruitment drive, signed a pledge of loyalty to the party, paid her annual dues, and received an organization pin. The student never attended a meeting or read the organization’s literature she was given. The student later joined other members of the organization at the ski resort. During a meeting around the ski lodge fireplace, the student learned for the first time that the organization was a radical organization. The organization’s members were preparing to use subversive means to achieve their objective of installing the organization’s spiritual leader as Supreme Dictator of the United States. To this end, the organization was stockpiling mind control serum and planned to poison the nation’s water supply. After returning home, the student consciously avoided members of the organization and never participated in the organization’s activities again, but the student’s name remained on the organization’s active member roster. Three years later, the student neared graduation and applied for federal employment.
Can the student be denied public employment based upon her membership in this organization?
No, because the student did not intend to install the organization’s spiritual leader as Supreme Dictator.
Congress enacted the Health Care Act (HCA) “to ensure all Americans access to health care at a reasonable cost.” Congress delegated to an executive agency, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), responsibility for promulgating regulations to implement the HCA. The HCA further provided that a joint House/Senate committee can repeal or revise the HHS regulations if the committee determines that they inadequately fulfill the HCA’s purpose. Would a court be likely to hold that the HCA is unconstitutional?
Yes, because it contains a legislative veto provision.
LEGISLATIVE VETO = UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Article I, § 4 of the Constitution provides: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed by each state legislature, but Congress may . . . make or alter such regulations.” Congress enacted a statute requiring every state to allow voters to register to vote in federal elections either by mail or at a state motor vehicle department. If a state refuses to comply with the statute and is sued by the federal government, will the state likely prevail?
No, because Article I, § 4 permits Congress to require states to change their laws regarding federal elections.
The Elections Clause of Art. I explicitly empowers Congress to override state laws concerning federal elections. This express provision makes irrelevant general principles of federalism embodied in the “commandeering” cases.
A federal statute provides that “all persons within the United States shall have the same right in every state to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white persons.” The Supreme Court interpreted this statute as applying to all contracts, including private contracts. A black citizen of a state in the United States claims that an appliance store in her state violated this statute by refusing to enter into a sales contract with her because of her race. The appliance store defended on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional. A federal court would be most likely to uphold this statute by relying upon which provision of the Constitution?
The Thirteenth Amendment
Unlike the Fourteenth Amendment and the Contracts Clause, the Thirteenth Amendment does not require state action. Rather, it abolishes slavery and its “badges and incidents,” including racial discrimination in private transactions like contracts. Moreover, Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to enact legislation to implement its guarantees.
Based on an advertisement in a local newspaper, a state resident bought a cross-country roundtrip ticket on a national airline for $450. The ad did not mention that the airline charged $75 for any changes to a ticket. Because of illness, the state resident had to change her return flight, and the airline charged her $75. The state resident refused to pay, citing a state law that required any ad for the sale of tickets for any event or trip to clearly disclose any monetary penalties for changing tickets. The airline sued the state resident in federal court for the unpaid fee, arguing that the state law is invalid, citing a federal statute prohibiting states from enforcing any law “relating to the rates, routes, or services” of any airline. Will the airline prevail?
Yes, because Congress has occupied the field of airline rates, routes, and service and hence has preempted the state law.
The language of the federal statute indicates a specific intent by Congress to preempt the field of airline regulations with regard to rates, routes, and services. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law when Congress has enacted legislation that explicitly prohibits state regulation in the same area.
A state amended its constitution to provide that “English is the state’s official language and applies to all state employees during the performance of government business.” A state employee sued the state’s governor to enjoin application of this provision to her. She alleged that she worked in the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and often communicated with customers in Spanish, thereby facing possible adverse employment action in violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The governor defends against this action by invoking the political question doctrine. Will the governor likely be successful?
No, because the state constitutional provision has been properly challenged as violating individual constitutional rights.
The political question doctrine applies only to the federal government, not the states. Here, the state employee has brought a plausible claim that her individual constitutional rights have been violated.
