National Association of Bros v. United States (2015)
In The PLAY Act of 2015, Congress made it a federal offense “for individuals aged 18 through 35 to play video games for more than 8 hours per week” citing their Commerce Clause and taxing those who choose to play over the allotted 8 hours per week through their Taxing and Spending Clause. Although, Congress has passed many laws in the name of both the Commerce Clause and the Taxing and Spending Clause, we the court must define which activities Congress was exclusively enumerated with in our Constitution. In the case of National Association of Bros v. United States (2015) we conclude the PLAY Act is not proper exercise of our Congress’ Commerce Clause. The PLAY Act attempts to regulate an …show more content…
Our Constitution was created with a Federal government which was to be finite and distinct. As well as powers which left to the State to be held abundant and unlimited. These dual separation of powers were to keep the fundamental liberties of the people protected. The Commerce Power was apportioned undeniably and solely to Congress to standardize the rule which commerce is to be governed. Chief Justice Marshall defined these Congressional commerce powers as more than the traffic of commodities, but the commercial intercourse of such commodities in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). This intercourse extends to every type of commercial including between the United States, foreign nations and among the States. This power is exclusively invested and must be exercised to the “utmost” extent according to Marshall Id. The only limitations to Congress’ Commerce power is only what is listed in the Constitution said Marshall. However, through the years of the Supreme Court there has been precedent that has set additional limits on Congress’ powers in commerce. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the Court introduced the “substantial effect” idea over commerce. If in the aggregate an action can affect the commerce as a whole, then Congress may regulate such actions. Although, this remained in effect for the United States for many decades, the Supreme Court created additional …show more content…
In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922), the Court defined when a tax becomes a penalty. According to Bailey a tax is a penalty when: it imposed an exceedingly high burden on those whom it applies, it imposes it on those who knowingly ignore the law, and when the tax is not collected by the proper entity. We the court find that $50 an hour over 8 hours can be an undetermined amount that can be easily burdensome on many. Although the tax attempts to raise money for the government this taxing scheme is paid to the Department of Education and traditionally all taxes must be paid into the Internal Revenue Service. Additionally, it imposes taxes on those who knowingly disregard the act. We the court also find that the defense has created a new law entirely. Congress must point to a specific grant of power in the Constitution to grant them the ability to create laws. Like in NFIB v. Sebelius, Justice Scalia and the joint dissenters all agreed that when Congress’ defense created a new justification for the Individual Mandate as a proposed taxation instead of Commerce as stated in the Affordable Care Act ultimately created a new act than the one that passed both Houses of Congress and the President’s desk. Same for the newly created justification in the PLAY for that passed both Houses
In The PLAY Act of 2015, Congress made it a federal offense “for individuals aged 18 through 35 to play video games for more than 8 hours per week” citing their Commerce Clause and taxing those who choose to play over the allotted 8 hours per week through their Taxing and Spending Clause. Although, Congress has passed many laws in the name of both the Commerce Clause and the Taxing and Spending Clause, we the court must define which activities Congress was exclusively enumerated with in our Constitution. In the case of National Association of Bros v. United States (2015) we conclude the PLAY Act is not proper exercise of our Congress’ Commerce Clause. The PLAY Act attempts to regulate an …show more content…
Our Constitution was created with a Federal government which was to be finite and distinct. As well as powers which left to the State to be held abundant and unlimited. These dual separation of powers were to keep the fundamental liberties of the people protected. The Commerce Power was apportioned undeniably and solely to Congress to standardize the rule which commerce is to be governed. Chief Justice Marshall defined these Congressional commerce powers as more than the traffic of commodities, but the commercial intercourse of such commodities in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). This intercourse extends to every type of commercial including between the United States, foreign nations and among the States. This power is exclusively invested and must be exercised to the “utmost” extent according to Marshall Id. The only limitations to Congress’ Commerce power is only what is listed in the Constitution said Marshall. However, through the years of the Supreme Court there has been precedent that has set additional limits on Congress’ powers in commerce. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the Court introduced the “substantial effect” idea over commerce. If in the aggregate an action can affect the commerce as a whole, then Congress may regulate such actions. Although, this remained in effect for the United States for many decades, the Supreme Court created additional …show more content…
In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922), the Court defined when a tax becomes a penalty. According to Bailey a tax is a penalty when: it imposed an exceedingly high burden on those whom it applies, it imposes it on those who knowingly ignore the law, and when the tax is not collected by the proper entity. We the court find that $50 an hour over 8 hours can be an undetermined amount that can be easily burdensome on many. Although the tax attempts to raise money for the government this taxing scheme is paid to the Department of Education and traditionally all taxes must be paid into the Internal Revenue Service. Additionally, it imposes taxes on those who knowingly disregard the act. We the court also find that the defense has created a new law entirely. Congress must point to a specific grant of power in the Constitution to grant them the ability to create laws. Like in NFIB v. Sebelius, Justice Scalia and the joint dissenters all agreed that when Congress’ defense created a new justification for the Individual Mandate as a proposed taxation instead of Commerce as stated in the Affordable Care Act ultimately created a new act than the one that passed both Houses of Congress and the President’s desk. Same for the newly created justification in the PLAY for that passed both Houses