Constitutional Law Flashcards
What’s the general rule on taxpayer standing?
What about the two instances where taxpayer DOES have standing?
A taxpayer generally does not have standing to file a federal lawsuit simply because the taxpayer believes the government has allocated funds in an improper way
But taxpayer does have standing to litigate, whether or how much she owes on her tax bill and government expenditures as violating the establishment clause
What are exclusive legislative powers that cannot be delegated?
— making / repealing laws
— declaring war
— impeaching federal officers
President has power to pardon what?
What situation would pres pardon not work?
President can pardon federal offenses
But not in cases of impeachment!
Can race based plan be used to remedy discrimination?
Race based plan cannot be used to remedy “general past societal discrimination”
States may implement regulations if class has actually suffered “persistent and readily identifiable past discrimination”
What are the three factors that the court looks out in determining whether a regulation constitutes of taking?
(1) the economic impact of the regulation on the property owner,
(2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with the owners reasonable investment back to expectations of use of the property
(3) the character of the regulation and whether it violates any of the owners essential attributes of property ownership, such as the right to exclude others
Exaction that doesn’t violate takings clause requires what?
(1) essential nexus between legitimate state interests and conditions imposed on property owner
(2) AND rough proportionality between the burden imposed by the conditions on the property owner and impact of the proposed development
State legislation that substantially impairs an existing private contract is invalid under the contract clause, unless it meets what standard?
The legislation must pass intermediate scrutiny. In other words the challenge law must further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.
The government can regulate expressive conduct such as wearing a black armband to protest war if what conditions are met?
(1) the government has an important interest that doesn’t have anything to do with the suppression of ideas
(2) and the incidental burden on speech is no greater than necessary to further that interest
What is the standard of review that regulations on content-neutral speech have to meet in order to be constitutional?
regulation must be narrowly tailored (aka not burden more than necessary) to advance an important gov interest unrelated to the suppression of speech
What are the standards that must be met for government to regulate content-neutrally (time, place, neutral) in public forums?
(1) must be content-neutral, aka subject matter and viewpoint neutral
(2) narrowly tailored to meet an important gov interest that’s unrelated to suppression of speech
(3) and leaves open alternative channels of communication
What are the standards that must be met when a government is regulating speech in a non-public forum?
(1) regulation must be viewpoint neutral
(2) and must be reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose
When do you have “inciting imminent lawless action” that can be regulated?
Must be shown that
(1) imminent illegal conduct is likely
(2) and the speaker intended to cause it
What’s the definition of “fighting words” that can be regulated?
Fighting words are personally abusive words that are likely to incite immediate physical retaliation in an average person
NOTE: SCOTUS will not tolerate statues regulating fighting words only protecting certain groups (e.g. prohibiting fighting words against women or minorities)
How does 1st amendment treat commercial speech?
Generally commercial speech is afforded first amendment protection if it is truthful
However, commercial speech that proposes unlawful activity, or that is false and misleading can be restricted
What standard must be met in order for a regulation of commercial speech to be upheld?
The regulation must serve an important government interest, directly advanced that interest, and is nearly tailored to serve that interest
