Con law

59 terms by jomofuc11 

Ready to study?
Start with Flashcards

Create a new folder

Advertisement Upgrade to remove ads

Lysander Spooner

...

Ejusden generis

of the same class or kind

Enumerates unis est exclusive alterius

The special kind of mention of thing excluded

Sic utero tuo et alienum nem laedas

use your property in a way it does injure another

vim vi repellere licit

it is lawful to repel force by force

Article IV of the constitution

full faith and credit clause, privleges and immunities, state borders shall remain, republican form of government

Article V

The congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this consitution, or on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof; Provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand 8 hundred and 8 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.

Barren v. Baltimore

State governments are not bound by the Fifth Amendment's requirement for just compensation in cases of eminent domain.

San Antonio Schools

Reliance on property taxes to fund public schools does not violate the Equal Protection Clause even if it causes inter-district expenditure disparities. Absolute equality of education funding is not required and a state system that encourages local control over schools bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. District Court of Texas reversed.

Nunn v. State

The state can restrict how one can carries a gun. The state can't restrict having a gun.

Aymette v. State

the court confine themselves entirely to the consideration of the distinction between a law prohibiting the right, and a law merely regulating the manner in which arms may be worn. They say, there can be no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed weapons, and one prohibiting the wearing them openly.
We think there is a manifest distinction. In the nature of things, if they were not allowed to bear arms openly, they could not bear them in their defence of the State at all. To bear arms in defence of the State, is to employ them in war, as arms are usually employed by civilized nations. The arms, consisting of swords, muskets, (p.161)rifles, &c., must necessarily be borne openly; so that a prohibition to bear them openly, would be a denial of the right altogether. And as in their constitution, the right to bear arms in defence of themselves, is coupled with the right to bear them in defence of the State, we must understand the expressions as meaning the same thing, and as relating to public, and not private; to the common, and not the individual defence.

Ex parte Merrymen

It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus".[1] Chief Justice Roger Taney, sitting as a federal circuit court judge, ruled that the authority to suspend habeas corpus lay with Congress, not the president. President Lincoln ignored the ruling, as did the Army under Lincoln's orders. The case was rendered moot by Lincoln's subsequent order in February 1862 to release almost everyone held as a political prisoner.

Habeas Corpus

When a person is detained by police or other authority, a court can issue a writ of habeas corpus, compelling the detaining authority either to show proper cause for detaining the person (e.g., by filing criminal charges) or to release the detainee. The court can then remand the prisoner to custody, release them on bail, or release them outright. Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, which enumerates the powers given to Congress, says, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Ex parte Milligan

Trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating. Trial by military tribunal is only constitutional when there is no power left but the military, and the military may only validly try criminals as long as is absolutely necessary.

Aricle 2 Section 1-

The executive pwer shall be vested in a president of the USA. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together, with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows- Electoral college=congressman plus senators of each state. Natural born citizen, 35, resident for 14 years, can't alter his salary

Article 2 section 2

The president shall be commander in chief of the army, navy, and militia of the several states= power to grant pardons- power to make treaties- appoint ambassadors

Article 2 section 3

He shall from time to time give to the congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary

Article 2 section 4

The president, vp, and all other civil officers of the US shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

Bill of Attainder

is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial.

Article 1 section 1

All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives

Article 1 section 2

Sets rules for the houses

14th Amendment. Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privleges or immunites of citizens of the United states; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Presser v. Illinois

The Second Amendment limits only the power of Congress and the national government, not that of the state

Cooley v. Board of Wardens

was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships entering or leaving Philadelphia to hire a local pilot did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Those who did not comply with the law had been required to pay a fee. "It is the opinion of a majority of the court that the mere grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce, did not deprive the States of power to regulate pilots, and that although Congress had legislated on this subject, its legislation manifests an intention, with a single exception, not to regulate this subject, but to leave its regulation to the several states," wrote Justice Curtis for the majority.

United states v. dewitt

It has been decided by this court that Congress may prohibit the exercise of a trade within a State under a penalty, in aid of, or for the purpose of collecting excise taxes levied upon the exercise of such trade.
One reason for the enactment may have been the protection of transportation companies between the States and between the United States and foreign countries from danger to property and life in transporting oil, mixed or sold in violation of this statute; and the protection of revenue officers in the examination, gauging, marking, and storing of such oil, and the proper distinction between and classification of different kinds of mineral oils made necessary for the convenient assessment and collection of excise taxes. If this was the reason, then the regulations are fairly incidental to the exercise of the power to regulate commerce or of the taxing power, and, as such, constitutional.

Julliard v. Greenman

Legal Tender Acts are constitutional, and apply in peacetime.

US v. Ec Knight CO

Manufacturing is not considered an area that can be regulated by Congress pursuant to the commerce clause.

Gonzales v. Raich

was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

United States v. Comstock

The federal government may order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous person beyond the conclusion of his sentence.

5 considerations
We base this conclusion on five considerations, taken together." The five considerations are as follows. First, the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress broad power to enact laws that are "rationally related" and "reasonably adapted" to executing the other enumerated powers. Second, the statute at issue "constitutes a modest addition" to related statutes that have existed for many decades. Third, the statute in question reasonably extends longstanding policy. Fourth, the statute properly accounts for state interests, by ending the federal government's role "with respect to an individual covered by the statute" whenever a state requests. Fifth, the statute is narrowly tailored to only address the legitimate federal interest.

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture

Congress improperly penalized employers for using child labor. Can't have tax penalites

United States v. Kahriger

The federal occupational tax on persons engaged in the business of accepting wagers under the 1951 Revenue Act was constitutional.

United States v. Sonzinsky

the tax is constitutional and Congress has this power under the taxing power granted to it in the Constitution. The tax did produce some revenue, and the Court will not analyze Congressional motives for imposing it. Further, the tax was within the national taxing power. Congress, the Court reasoned, could determine the subjects of taxation, and could choose some while omitting others. The Court also explained that the tax in question was not a penalty imposed for the purpose of enforcing regulations, which would be beyond the scope of the taxing power.

Congress has the power to impose taxes reasonably related to its taxing power. More importantly, if Congress acts pursuant to a power granted to it by the Constitution, the Court will not analyze the motives behind the regulation.

William Howard Taft

Appointed by Harding. 1921- Wrote Bailey v. Drexel

Bailey v. Drexel

was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the 1919 Child Labor Tax Law unconstitutional as an improper attempt by Congress to penalize employers using child labor. The Court indicated that the tax imposed by the statute was actually a penalty in disguise.
The Court later abandoned the philosophy underlying the Bailey case. For example, see United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953)

United States v. Kahringer

The federal occupational tax on persons engaged in the business of accepting wagers under the 1951 Revenue Act was constitutional.

Charles Evans Hughes

Appointed by Hoover- 1930- NLRB v. johnon + johnson

NLRB v. Jones + Laughlin

"Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control."

U.S. v. Morrison

Women's battering case- can't have too attenuated of a nexus between commerce clause and the law

Justice Hugo Black

Black is noted for his advocacy of a textualist reading of the United States Constitution and of the position that the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were imposed on the states ("incorporated") by the Fourteenth Amendment. During his political career, Black was regarded as a staunch supporter of liberal policies and civil liberties. Appointed by Rosevelt.
United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), and Katzenbach v. McClung

Earl Warrne

He is known for the sweeping decisions of the Warren Court, which ended school segregation and transformed many areas of American law, especially regarding the rights of the accused, ending public-school-sponsored prayer, and requiring "one-man-one vote" rules of apportionment. He made the Court a power center on a more even base with Congress and the presidency especially through four landmark decisions: Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

Mellville Fuller

1888- Appointed by Grover Cleveland. he equally famous (and much criticized) phrase "separate but equal," justifying segregation in the South, was made famous by the Fuller Court case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). United States v. EC Knight

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

in which the court held that the Federal Fugitive Slave Act precluded a Pennsylvania state law that gave procedural protections to suspected escaped slaves, and overturned the conviction of Edward Prigg as a result. Federal Law Trumps State Law

Warren Burger

had conservative leanings[1], the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a variety of transformative and controversial decisions on abortion, capital punishment, religious establishment, and school desegregation during his tenure.

Thomas

Thomas is an orignalist

Rehnquist

Rehnquist is a structuralist. eeply concerned with the state-federal balance. One might say that Printz, NY v. US, and Gregory v. Ashcroft are all structuralist decisions, and to that extent, every Justice who joined the majorities in those cases was being structuralist.

know Article 1 (Sections 8-10), All of Article 4, the 13th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment (Sections 1&5)

...

Slaughter-house cases: I didn't understand the argument on how being a state citizen makes a person's general US rights exist. I think it was used in the context of how the 14th Amendment did not apply to the states.

State citizenship does not make those rights exist. For the most part, the general US rights (e.g., right to follow a trade, right to free speech, right to arms) are natural rights which are protected by governments, but not created by them.

United States v. Miller

The National Firearms Act — as applied to transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long, without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it — was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and did not violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Charles E. Hughes

Property Requisition Act

1941, just before Pearl Harbor, Congress authorized the President to requisition property from the private sector on payment of fair compensation. The Property Requisition Act prohibited any construction "(1) to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport (and the possession of which is not prohibited or the registration of which is not required by existing law), [or] (2) to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms...."

Oregon Waste Systems v. DEQ

Oregon's surcharge was invalid under the dormant commerce clause. stating that the state of Oregon's surcharge was invalid under the negative commerce clause. This meant that the surcharge favored in-state economic interests over out-of-state counterparts. The surcharge was discriminatory to outside states because it imposed a fee three times greater than that imposed on in-state waste

Granholm v. Heald

The Court ruled that laws in New York and Michigan that permitted in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers, but prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing the same are unconstitutional.

South-Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke

held unconstitutional Alaska's inclusion of a requirement that purchasers of state-owned timber process it within state before it was shipped out of state. According to a plurality opinion by Justice White, Alaska could not impose "downstream" conditions in the timber-processing market as a result of its ownership of the timber itself. The opinion summarized "[the] limit of the market-participant doctrine" as "[allowing a State to impose burdens on commerce within the market in which it is a participant, but [to] go no further. The State may not impose conditions [that] have a substantial regulatory effect outside of that particular market."

Missouri v. Holland

Protection of its quasi-sovereign right to regulate the taking of game is a sufficient jurisdictional basis, apart from any pecuniary interest, for a bill by a State to enjoin enforcement of federal regulations over the subject alleged to be unconstitutional. Treaties made by the federal government are supreme over any state concerns about such treaties having abrogated any states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.

Gregory v. Ashcroft

was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of states rights against a claim that a mandatory retirement provision for judges (at age 70) in Article V, § 26, of the Missouri Constitution was contrary to federal law and the Equal Protection Clause. The Court rejected the challenge to the state regulation because it would "alter the 'usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government.'" Id. at 460 (quoting Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985)). "[I]t is incumbent upon the federal courts to be certain of Congress' intent" before infringing on the state regulation

New York v. United States

The "take title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act violates the Tenth Amendment and exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

Sonzinsky v. United States

es, the tax is constitutional and Congress has this power under the taxing power granted to it in the Constitution. The tax did produce some revenue, and the Court will not analyze Congressional motives for imposing it. Further, the tax was within the national taxing power. Congress, the Court reasoned, could determine the subjects of taxation, and could choose some while omitting others. The Court also explained that the tax in question was not a penalty imposed for the purpose of enforcing regulations, which would be beyond the scope of the taxing power.
Congress has the power to impose taxes reasonably related to its taxing power. More importantly, if Congress acts pursuant to a power granted to it by the Constitution, the Court will not analyze the motives behind the regulation.

US v. Darby

upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions. The unanimous decision of the Court in this case overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart 247

Bailey v. Drexel

ruled the 1919 Child Labor Tax Law unconstitutional as an improper attempt by Congress to penalize employers using child labor. The Court indicated that the tax imposed by the statute was actually a penalty in disguise.

Prize Cases

The President did have the authority to order a blockade and impound ships, even without a formal declaration of war

Please allow access to your computer’s microphone to use Voice Recording.

Having trouble? Click here for help.

We can’t access your microphone!

Click the icon above to update your browser permissions above and try again

Example:

Reload the page to try again!

Reload

Press Cmd-0 to reset your zoom

Press Ctrl-0 to reset your zoom

It looks like your browser might be zoomed in or out. Your browser needs to be zoomed to a normal size to record audio.

Please upgrade Flash or install Chrome
to use Voice Recording.

For more help, see our troubleshooting page.

Your microphone is muted

For help fixing this issue, see this FAQ.

Star this term

You can study starred terms together

NEW! Voice Recording

Create Set