Constitutional Law Flashcards
(13 cards)
How can Congress an indirect federal tax?
If it is: imposed identically in every state where the taxed goods are found (geographically uniform) AND it is reasonably related to revenue production (i.e., no provisions extraneous to tax purposes)
Can a state tax property moving in interstate commerce?
Yes, if it complies with the negative implication of the commerce clause, meaning the state has a substantial nexus with the taxed property such that the property has a taxable situs in the state, (2) the tax is fairly apportioned, (3) the tax is nondiscriminatory, and (4) the tax is fairly related to benefits or services provided by the state.
Military powers of President and Congress conflicting, what is the test?
When these coequal branches of government share power, the Youngstown framework determines whether the President acted within his/her constitutional authority. This framework considers where there was congressional:
-authorization: in which case the President had maximum authority to act and that act is likely valid
-silence: in which case the act is valid so long as it (1) fell within the President’s Article II powers and (2) did not interfere with another branch’s power or
-opposition: in which case the President had minimal authority to act and that act is likely invalid
Are the federal government’s affiliates (persons or entities employed by or doing business with the federal government) immune from taxes?
Only immune if:
-Congress grants the affiliate immunity
-the tax discriminates against the federal government or its affiliates or
-the tax substantially interferes with the affiliate’s federal purpose or duties
Procedural due process requirements and factors
Procedural due process requires that the government provide reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision-maker when depriving persons of life, liberty, or property. To determine whether the government provided due process, courts balance three factors:
-the private interest affected by the deprivation
-the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through current procedures and the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards and
-the government’s interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that other safeguards would entail
Commercial speech
Commercial speech that is NOT false or misleading and does not concern unlawful activity receives First Amendment protection. And any government regulation of that speech must (1) directly advance a substantial government interest and (2) be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Lawrence v. Texas
The Supreme Court has made clear that the government has no legitimate interest in prohibiting private sexual activity between consenting adults.
President’s removal power
The president has implied power under Article II to remove executive officers appointed by the President. However, the President may not remove, at will, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officers, nor can the President remove a federal judge without a formal impeachment proceeding, even if the President appointed the officer.
Federal court abstention
The federal courts may abstain from deciding cases that contain federal law issues that may be avoided by giving the state courts the opportunity to resolve ambiguous questions of state law first. By giving the state courts this opportunity, the federal law issues may become unnecessary to decide.
Minor’s right to buy contraceptives
SCOTUS has struck down laws that prohibited minors from purchasing contraceptives because it impinges on their fundamental right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.
Third-party standing
Third-party standing allows a claimant to challenge government action that violates the constitutional rights of third parties when: (1) a “special relationship” exists between the claimant and the third party; and (2) it would be difficult, unlikely, or impossible for the third party to challenge the government action itself. (Example, a retailer bringing suit to defend itself for selling contraceptives to minors, because minors would likely not be able to bring this suit themselves)
“Occupy the field”
Even if a state statute is not expressly preempted, the statute may be impliedly preempted if Congress intended the federal law to “occupy the field.” A court will consider: (1) whether the federal scheme is so comprehensive that Congress left no room for the states to enact supplemental laws; and (2) whether there is a need for a uniform regulatory scheme to avoid confusion and difficulty in administration.
