IV. Federal Enforcement of Rights Held Against Government Flashcards
1
Q
Privileges or Immunities – Enslavement, Race, and Reconstruction
Importance of Reconstruction
on P&E
A
During reconstruction, passed 13 (abolished slavery), 14 (citizenship to all people and applies B.o.R to states), 15th (voting rights) Amendments to degrade state rights – Congress given power to enforce since outside I.8, fundamentally changing power structure of gov
2
Q
Privileges or Immunities – Enslavement, Race, and Reconstruction
Significance of Dred Scott v. Sandford
A
- Can people who descended from slaves be considered citizens such that they can sue? No
- (CJ Taney) States cannot confer US citizenship (federalism concern). US citizenship was given to citizens who were at the constitutional ratification and their descendants - which doesn’t include black people. Since they are not citizens, they cannot sue.
3
Q
Privileges or Immunities – Enslavement, Race, and Reconstruction
Significance of Slaughterhouse Cases
A
- 25 year monopoly and specification of how they are to operate; the QBC is whether the creation of the statute violated the 13th & 14th?
- 13th & 14th apply to the federal government only, the state legislature is within its police power – where there is not direct general federal power over an object of legislation or governance they remain subject to state legislation
- Federalism issue - State police power (10th Amendment vs. 14th Amendment); this is an police power b/c about health and safety + states are closer to people to this is a Madisonian check
- Fields interpretation of police powers – the landing and slaughtering of the animals and inspection of the animals for disease are police powers, however, the creation of monopolies are not a police power
4
Q
Suspect Classifications and Fundamental Rights
Emergence of Amend. From SCOTUS Decisions
A
- 11th A (1798), overruled Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), giving states immunity against certain suits;
- 14th A (1868) reversed Dred Scott (1857)/granted national citizenship to persons formerly enslaved;
- 16th A (1913) circumvented Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Corp (1895) to allow federal income tax;
- 26th A (1971) overturned Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) to require states to give 18 year-olds the ability to vote.
5
Q
Suspect Classifications and Fundamental Rights
Substantive Due Process history
A
- 5th Amendment DP = procedural due process
- 14th Amendment DP = substantive rights
- Never been applied to 5th against indictment, 7th, 6th, 3rd or 8th.
- Edward III codified it into law
- Comes from Magna Carta 39
- Social Darwinism + Adam Smith’s economic doctrine of laissez faire = substantive DP; individualism and decreased gov. Regulation in pursuit of the public good
- (1) objectives/ends sought by the legislation in question, and
- (2) means employed to achieve the ends
Lochner Era - used 14th Amendment DP to protect substantive economic due process; seen as deprave period b/c Court was acting as policy maker and only striking down state laws if they were “arbitrary/unreasonable”
6
Q
Suspect Classifications and Fundamental Rights
Significance of Lochner v. New York Peckham
A
(State) Police Powers v. (Federal) Individual Rights
- The general right to make a contract in relation to one’s business is part of the liberty of individuals protected under the 14th
- The 14th prevents any state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
- When there is a conflict between state legislature and the protection of the federal constitution the question asked is;
- Is this a fair, reasonable and appropriate exercise of the police power of the state or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to their personal liberty?
- In order for the state to prevail there must be a direct relation, as a means to an end, and the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate, before an act can be held to be valid
- Infers that the general right of an individual is to be free in their person and it is their power to contract in relation to their own labor
7
Q
Suspect Classifications and Fundamental Rights
Significance of Nebbia v. New York
A
- Was NY setting prices on milk a violation of 14th Amendment? No. Reasonable end (dairy industry needs regulation) and is not arbitrary
- Court held that since the price controls were not “arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant” to the policy adopted by the legislature to promote the general welfare/ public interest, the regulation was constitutional
*** No exercise of a private right can affect the public; no exercise of the legislative prerogative to regulate the conduct of the citizen which will not to some extent abridge his liberty or affect his property
**
8
Q
Suspect Classifications and Fundamental Rights
Significance of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
A
- notable the end of the lochner era
- Can states impose minimum wages under 5th Amendment applied through the 14th Amendment for women workers? Yes: 10th Amendment can be used to restrict freedom of contract
- Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community
9
Q
Equal Protection - Race
What is Strict scrutiny
A
- classification serves compelling state interest/necessary to serve that interest.
- (A) Suspect classifications: race, national origin, religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause); alienage (Unless it falls within a recognized “political community” exception in which case only rational basis scrutiny is applied).
- (B) Classifications burdening fundamental rights: denial/dilution of the vote; interstate migration; access to the courts; other fundamental rights.
10
Q
Equal Protection - Race
What is Mid-level scrutiny
A
- classification serves important state interest/at least substantially related to serving that interest.
- (A) Gender
- (B) Illegitimacy
11
Q
Equal Protection - Race
What is Rational basis
A
- classification rationally-related to serving a legitimate state interest.
- Applies to everything not listed above (but some cases show slightly closer scrutiny where the state’s interest is also weighed – e.g., cases involving classifications that disadvantage LGBQT, children of illegal aliens, and mentally disabled).
- To pass the rational basis test, the statute or ordinance must have a
- legitimate state interest, and there must be a
- rational connection between the statute’s/ordinance’s means and goals.
12
Q
Equal Protection - Race
Significance of Plessy v. Ferguson
A
- Was Louisiana statute requiring segregated railways violation of 14th Amendment? No, separate but equal is fine. The 14th Amendment is not intended to abolish social distinctions b/w races. It achieves political equality, not social equality.
- Harlan dissent - attaches badge of discrimination that implies inferiority, which was supposed to be done away w/ under reconstruction amendments
- Reasonableness element – established in reference to the established usages, customs, and promotion of comfort, and the preservation of public peace and good order
13
Q
Equal Protection - Race
Significance of Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I)
A
- The court interpreted the 14th as prohibiting all state-imposed discriminations against Black folk
- Brown v. Board of Ed - Segregation itself makes black people feel inferior which adversely affects the education system, thus based on precedent, would violate separate but equal. Overturns Plessy v. Ferguson which upholds separate but equal.
- [H] 14th Amendment intended to mitigate discrimination against Black people
14
Q
Equal Protection - Race
Significance of Cooper v. Aaron
A
- Does Brown v Board of Ed apply to Arkansas? Yes based on supremacy clause and Marbury v. Madison
- The constitutional rights of respondents are not to be sacrificed or yielded to the violence and disorder which have followed upon the actions of the Governor and Legislature
- The command of the 14th is that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
- This means that no agency of the state shall deny within its jurisdiction the equal protection of law
15
Q
Equal Protection - Race
Significance of Loving v. Virginia
A
- The court rejects the notion that mere equal protection of a statute continuing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the 14th’s proscription of all invidious racial discriminations
- The Court rejected the state’s argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a “rational purpose” test under the Fourteenth Amendment.
