Federal Law, Federal Institutions, and Federal Supremacy Flashcards
Article IV
- States must respect and honor the laws and court orders of other states. Congress may pass laws regulating this. This includes returning escaped prisoners to the state that convicted them
- State formation is controlled by Congress and the states.
- The US is one and the federal government will protect the states
- Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee*
- ’*
Article III gives SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction over cases decided in state courts
- Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee*
- Issue*
Whether SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over cases decided in state courts
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
Facts
Martin claimed he inherited land from a British subject and Hunter claimed he owned it through state law. SCOTUS heard the case because the state ruled against a federal law in Martin’s favor but Virginia didn’t comply because it said SCOTUS didn’t have the power to overrule a state court decision.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
Reasoning
The Constitution was written by the people, not the states. It left states with their own power but gave the federal government superseding power over in some areas. Congress can supersede state laws. The Constitution gave SCOTUS jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution, the laws, and treaties of the United States. When these start in state courts, the state has original jurisdiction and SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction. Article III gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over all cases it doesn’t have original jurisdiction over. This includes all cases in state courts. Article III doesn’t limit the Court’s appellate jurisdiction to certain lower courts so it must have appellate jurisdiction over all lower courts. SCOTUS’s role as an appellate court ensures laws are interpreted uniformly throughout America. (§ 25 of the Judiciary Act also gave SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction over the case.)
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
Holding
SCOTUS had appellate jurisdiction over the Virginia courts.
McCulloch v. Maryland (Part 1)
It is unconstitutional for a state to impose laws on federal government operations
McCulloch v. Maryland (Part 1)
Issue
Whether it is constitutional for Maryland to collect taxes from a branch of the Bank of the United States
McCulloch v. Maryland (Part 1)
Facts
Maryland taxed all banks not chartered by the state and the Bank of the United States refused to pay.
McCulloch v. Maryland (Part 1)
Reasoning
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and can create or destroy other powers. Other laws may not go against it. The power of taxation is given to the state government by the people of the state to use for the state. Federal operations are not part of this. People of other states would not want one state to have control over the federal government. If states were allowed to tax federal government operations, they would have power over the government. States have no power to control the operations of constitutional laws and that what Maryland’s taxation law would do.
McCulloch v. Maryland (Part 1)
Holding
Maryland’s law to tax banks was unconstitutional when applied to federal banks.
U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton
States may not adopt their own qualifications for congressional service when the qualifications would be inconsistent with the federal Constitution. Qualifications can only be changed through an amendment.
U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton
Issue
Whether states may adopt their own qualifications for congressional service when the qualifications would be inconsistent with the federal Constitution
U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton
Facts
Arkansas amended its Constitution to limit the qualifications for its citizens to become members of Congress
U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton
Reasoning
The power to add qualifications was not within the original powers of the states and so not reserved by the 10th Amendment. Before the Constitution there was no common federal government. The Constitution created it and the right to elect national representatives. The Framers intended the Constitution to be the sole source of qualifications and so divested states of that power. The framers included many clauses in the Constitution to guard against states gaining power to interfere with federal elections. Federal government officials are elected by the people, not the states. Allowing states to add their own qualifications would erode the framers’ intent to have one country rather than a confederation of states. This doesn’t violate the 10th Amendment because it only gave states the power they had before the Constitution was established, and the qualifications for federal government officials didn’t exist before the Constitution.
U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton
Holding
Arkansas’s amendment to its constitution was unconstitutional; qualifications for Congress may only be changed via a constitutional amendment
U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton
Concurrence
“The Framers split the atom of sovereignty. It was the genius of their idea that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other… A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it.”
U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton
Dissent
Nothing in the federal Constitution says states can’t develop their own qualifications, and where the Constitution is silent, there is no way to stop states from acting. The only powers state gave away are those enumerated in the Constitution and the 10th Amendment gives all powers not enumerated to the states. It’s incorrect to interpret the 10th Amendment as only giving the states the powers they had before the Constitution was established.
