Con Law

Front 1

Article 1 Section 8 says Congress may spend to provide for the common defense and general welfare

Back 1

Spending may be for any public purpose. Even if Congress' enumerated powers would not permit it to do something directly it may use its spending power to encourage/discourage certain conduct

Front 2

The14A equal protection clause has been interpreted by SCOTUS as prohibiting STATE dilution of the right to vote by malapportionment of electoral districts

Back 2

(i.e. a ban on fewer representatives per voter in some districts than others)

Front 3

The14A Privileges & Immunities Clause has been interpreted as protecting only against STATE infringement of rights particular to NATIONAL citizenship (e.g. the right to vote in national elections)

Back 3

The right to vote in local elections is NOT protected by The14A Privileges & Immunities Clause

Front 4

The Equal protection clause prohibits only GOVERNMENT infringement.

Back 4

This does not mean that only direct government action is proscribed. Private action may constitute state action where the private actor is performing an exclusive state function or the government is significantly involved in the private actor's activities. A grant of land does not constitute significant state involvement

Front 5

The burden of proof concerning non-suspect classification is on the plaintiff to show that the law is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest

Back 5

For suspect classification (e.g. race or gender) triggering intermediate or strict scrutiny, the burden is on the government

Front 6

Preemption will be found where it was the intent of the USFG to occupy the entire field with its regulation OR where the state is found to interfere with the federal scheme of regulation

Back 6

For regulations involving health, safety, and welfare, the court will presume that the state police powers are not preempted unless it was a clear and manifest purpose of Congress when it enacted the federal law