Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
7 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture |
Contrasts Sebelius to show what is NOT a tax --Prohibitory financial punishment (10% of net income) --Scienter requirement --Collected through Dept. of Labor, NOT the IRS as taxes usually are |
|
|
Sebelius & the Taxing Power |
Found the individual mandate VALID under the taxing power. "Penalty" is really just a tax --Imposed by IRS, levied on taxpayers through income tax --Collected by Treasury and produces revenue for government --A penalty would be a fine imposed on unlawful conduct. Here, choice to purchase healthcare is a rational choice between a fine and paying for insurance --Taxing INACTIVITY is a legitimate power of Congress. Not so severe as to be punitive but Court did NOT specify when a tax becomes punitive as opposed to imposing a rational choice |
|
|
US v. Butler |
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 taxed processors of agricultural commodities and used proceeds to subsidize farmers who agreed to restrict their production Issue - Is this valid under the tax & spend power? Holding - Feds can spend for general welfare, but cannot regulate for general welfare. AAA regulated production, and regulation of production should be left to states Reasoning --"provide for the general welfare" qualifies power "to lay and collect taxes" --Thus, General welfare clause is subject to limitations --Fact that AAA is voluntary doesn't change its coercive nature - if you don't buy in then you lose competitive advantage against other farmers. --Difference between "regulation" and "condition." If you cannot regulate conduct directly then you shouldn't be able to do so through the back door of the spending power Stone Dissent --"Threat of loss, not hope of gain" - as long as gov gives people something then it isn't coercive. Coercion occurs when you take something away --Looks for definable contour of "general welfare" that courts can enforce Purpose must be truly national, may not be coercive in things left to state control, conscience and patriotism of Congress and Executive will also help limit power What we know about limits of spending power --Conditions on grants okay so long as the purpose is truly national and limits are related to the purposes of the program or a national purpose Congress cannot coerce states or people within states into doing things that would be within the realm of the state |
|
|
Steward Machine Co v. Davis |
Facts - Fed. unemployment compensation system organized such that states setting up their own systems are somewhat disadvantaged in that employers receive a credit (up to 90% of federal taxes) on federal taxes by participating in state fund Is this Constitutional under the Tax and Spending Power Holding - system did not involve the coercion of the states in contravention of the 10th amendment or of restrictions implicit in our federal form of government. Thus constitutional Reasoning --Relatedness - whatever conditions are put on program must be related to the operation of the program itself, or to any other legitimately national end --must allow Congress to put conditions on programs so we know where $$ is going |
|
|
South Dakota v. Dole |
Facts - condition that future federal highway funds given only to states with drinking age of 21 or above Issue - Is this a coercive violation of the tax and spending power Holding - Condition on grant looks coercive, but it is not a lot of coercion (only 5% of federal highway funds). Therefore it's okay Reasoning - 4 part test for grants with conditions being within Spending Power --Exercise of Spending Power in pursuit of general welfare (defer substantially to the judgment of congress) --Any conditions must be unambiguous Conditions must be related to federal interest in national projects/programs --Cannot violate other constitutional provisions --WE ADD A FIFTH ELEMENT - NO COERCION --Test favors federal government, with only relatedness and MAYBE coercion being real limits O'Connor Dissent --Minimum drinking age not sufficiently related to interstate highway construction to justify the conditions placed on funds appropriated for that purpose Preventing a "race to the bottom" --State might get away with as little as possible in order to satisfy a particular interest group in the state --Feds don't want this to happen, so it offers funds to states to help them meet minimum standards Risk inherent in federal carrot (Baker) --Diversity: ----Different states can be different in the goods and services provided to its citizens ----Value of federalism is that states can choose the package they want and live in that state ----Diversity of state governments, an element of national welfare, risks homogenization of spending clause influence is too strong |
|
|
Sebelius Medicaid and Coercion |
If States do not cooperate with ACA and Medicaid expansion, then states lose ALL Medicaid funding for ALL citizens on it. Roberts - this is coercive and cites Dole, this is a "gun to the head." Dole was merely "mild encouragement." Ginsburg says that we give deference to Congress' conditional grants. Just because Congress labels this expansion "Medicaid" does NOT mean that they are not changing the program. This isn't merely an expansion, this is a fundamental change in the system. Roberts also says that states didn't have fair notice of the transformation. Ginsburg says that statutory language granting Congress the right to amend programs DOES give fair notice. Scalia - why didn't Congress provide "back-up" options for states that want to opt out? Congress assumed that every state would accept the expansions. Feds want to "seem" like a generous benefactor, but how is that possible if HALF the states are bringing suit. Why did Congress feel need to threaten the states with taking away Medicaid? Ginsburg responds - why doesn't Congress repeal Medicaid and then re-pass it with the expansions |
|
|
War Power |
Congress can declare war, though we have not declared war since WWII, provide for the common defense, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces POTUS is Commander in Chief of Army & Navy Many (potentially most) military decisions will be non-justiciable But there are some appropriate spin-off cases that make their way through civil courts Woods v. Cloyd Miller - "War power does NOT necessarily end with the cessation of hostilities" |
