Con Law pt 2

Congress’s Power to Tax and Spend

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . .

• Congress has broad authority to tax and spend for the general welfare

• Congress can adopt any tax to raise revenue and any spending program that Congress believes serves the general welfare

U.S. v. Butler- How the Supreme Court defined limits on Congress’s spending power facts

• Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933

• It imposed taxes on agricultural processors like cotton mills and used the funds to pay farmers who agreed to reduce their crop production.

• Paid farmers not to grow crop to control prices

• Goal: reduce crop supply and raise prices amid the Depression

U.S. v.Butler const. questions

1. What is the the Scope of Congress’s power to tax and spend?

• James Madison: Congress has the power to tax and spend ONLY to carry out one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution

• Alexander Hamilton: Congress has the power to tax and spend for any purpose, serve the general welfare

2. Was the Act a valid use of taxing and spending?

• Should Congress provide for a National Disaster?

• Madisonian perspective NO. Congress can only tax to carry out its enumerated powers

• Hamilton perspective: YES, Congress has a broad authority to tax and spend

U.S. v. Butler Court decision

• Court adopted the Hamilton’s perspective

• Congress can tax and spend for any purpose

• 6–3 ruling: Act unconstitutional

• Congress was using the spending power as an enforcement mechanism to control activity that was completely within the authority of the states

U.S. v. Butler Key takeaways

• The Tax and spending power is an independent grant of authority, not limited to enumerated powers

• Set precedent for future spending power debates

• Clarified boundaries of federal economic regulation

NFIB v. Sebelius- Constitutionality of two key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA): The individual mandate and Medicaid expansion Facts

The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care):

• Enacted in 2010 to expand health insurance coverage and reduce costs

• Key provisions:

• Medicaid expansion: States extend coverage to low-income individuals

• Individual mandate: Requires Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty

• Politically contentious: major legislative achievement of the Obama administration

• Can Congress force people to purchase a product?

Additional Restrictions on Insurance Companies:

• Health insurance companies were not allowed to deny coverage on pre-existing conditions

• Health insurance companies were not allowed to put a yearly or lifetime cap on health benefits

The Individual Mandate:

• Requires individuals to maintain “minimum essential” coverage

• Noncompliance results in a “shared responsibility payment” to the IRS

• Labeled a “penalty” in the statute, but functions like a tax

NFIB v. Sebelius- Commerce clause challenge & Necessary & proper clause

Commerce Clause challenge:

• Court ruled: Congress cannot compel individuals to buy insurance under the Commerce Clause

• Reasoning: The clause allows regulation of existing activity— not forcing inactivity into commerce

Necessary and Proper Clause:

• Court ruled: Mandate not justified under this clause

U.S. v. Sebelius- Taxing Power Justification

• Justice Roberts, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan

• Court upheld the mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power

• The payment resembles a tax:

• Collected by IRS

• Not punitive

• Offers choice: buy insurance or pay

U.S. v. Sebelius- Medicaid Expansion

• ACA required states to expand Medicaid or lose all federal Medicaid funding

• Expansion aimed to cover adults up to 133% of the poverty level

• Court ruled: Threatening total Medicaid funding is coercive and unconstitutional

• States must have a genuine choice to opt into expansion

U.S. v. Sebelius- Severability and Remedy

• Remedy: Prohibit federal government from withdrawing existing Medicaid funds

• Rest of ACA remains intact

• States may choose whether to participate in expansion

U.S. v. Sebelius- Dissenting Vote

• Congress never called this a tax

• Labels don’t matter, Congress has broad powers to tax and spend for the general welfare

• 40 million Americans have benefited from the Obama care

• Protected millions with pre-existing conditions from losing coverage

U.S. v. Sebelius- Key Takeaways

• Expanded federal taxing power, while limiting its ability to coerce states

• Individual mandate: Constitutional under taxing power, not commerce

• Medicaid expansion: Unconstitutional as coercive, but available

• Reinforces limits on federal power and preserves ACA’s core structure

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

• The Court struck down sweeping "reciprocal" and "trafficking" tariffs imposed by the Trump administration

• The president does not have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977

• Power to tax—which includes tariffs—is a "core congressional power" under Article I of the Constitution

• IEEPA allows the president to "regulate... importation" during emergencies, it contains no explicit mention of "tariffs," "duties," or "taxes"

Difference between non-delegation doctrine and MQD

Major Questions Doctrine: "transformative expansion" of executive authority over the economy requires clear, specific authorization from Congress

The Major Questions Doctrine is a statutory interpretation Requires a "clear statement" from Congress before an agency can regulate matters of "vast economic and political significance"

The Nondelegation Doctrine is a constitutional principle. It asks whether Congress has improperly given its core lawmaking power to an agency

Post-Civil War Amendments

1. Eliminates slavery

2. Altered relationship national government and states

3. Gives Congress the power to enforce it

13th Amendment

• The Emancipation Proclamation

• The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865

• It prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude

• Before Civil War ended 13th Amendment was added

• It applies directly to private conduct “people cannot be or own slaves”

• Section 2 “Congress by appropriate legislation may enforce the 13th Amendment”

• Eliminating slavery was not enough

• The former rebel states after the Civil War to deny all rights to the former slaves

• 14th Amendment

14th Amendment (1868)

• Section I: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States”

• Overturned Dred Scott v Sanford: slaves are property and were not citizens

• Controversial, Trump issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship

• Challenges followed in federal courts around the country

14th Amendment Section 1 – State Action Doctrine:

• “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities 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.”

14th Amendment Origin (1868):

• Section 5 “Congress can enforce the 14th Amendment by appropriate legislation”

• Rebel states rejected the 14th Amendment

• Congress (northern states) passed the Reconstruction Act, coercing states to ratify the 14th Amendment before joining the Union

• Ohio and NJ rescinded ratification

• Secretary of State certified ratification ¾ states ratified

15th Amendment (1870)

• Key to equality right to vote

• “No person should be denied the right to vote on account of race or previous conditions of servitude”

• Section 2 “Congress has the power to enforce this amendment through appropriate legislation”

• What is Congress authority to legislate under the Post-Civil War Amendments?

• Section 2, 13th Amendment,

• Section 5, 14th Amendment

• Section 2, 15th Amendment

1. Who can Congress regulate

1883 Civil Rights Cases:

• Civil Rights Act 1875: Civil Rights Law prohibited private business (hotels, parks), discriminate on the basis of race

• Supreme Court: 13th Amendment, Section 2, and 14th Amendment, Section 5 limited to government Action

• Congress cannot use this power to regulate private discrimination: State Action Doctrine

• Congress adopted the Civil Rights Act 1964 used the commerce clause

Private Conduct:

• 13th Amendment Interpretation has changed

• Jones v. Alfred Mayer 1968

• Discrimination in acquisition of property

• 13th Amendment section 2 is directed to private behavior

• “Congress broad power to eradicate the badges and incidents of slavery”

14th Amendment:

• The Courts’s restrictive interpretation of 14th Section 5 hasn’t change

• U.S. v. Morrison 2000: Congress under section 5 of the 14th power cannot regulate private conduct, only states and local governments

2. What is the authority of Congress under the 14th Amendment

City of Boerne v. Flores:

• 1997 The Archbishop of San Antonio sued local zoning authorities

• Denied his permit to expand his Church, violating rights under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act

• Did Congress exceed its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers by enacting the RFRA which, in part, subjected local ordinances to federal regulation?

• “Congress cannot create new rights or expand the scope of rights”. Congress can enact laws that remedy or prevent constitutional violations

What is Congress authority to legislate under the 15th Amendment?:

South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)

• Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA).

• Focus: Whether Congress exceeded its authority under the 15th Amendment.

• South Carolina argued the Act infringed on state sovereignty

South Carolina v. Katzenbach facts

Voting Rights Act of 1965 – Section 4:

• Targeted jurisdictions with discriminatory voting practices

• Criteria: Literacy tests + low voter turnout in 1964

• Imposed federal oversight (preclearance) for changes to voting laws

South Carolina v. Katzenbach decision

Majority Opinion – Chief Justice Earl Warren:

• Upheld the VRA as constitutional.

• Congress has full authority to enforce the 15th Amendment

• Emphasized the need to eliminate racial discrimination in voting

South Carolina v. Katzenbach dissenting

Justice Hugo Black’s Dissent:

• Opposed the preclearance requirement

• Argued it undermined state autonomy

• Warned it could “wipe the states out as useful and effective units”

South Carolina v. Katzenbach Aftermath

Impact of the Decision:

• VRA extended and revised in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006

• Strengthened protections for minority voters

• Federal oversight continued for decades

Reconsideration Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

• Supreme Court struck down the Section 4 formula.

• Reason: Based on outdated data from the 1970s

• Congress has not updated the formula since

• Restrictive interpretation of Section 5, 15th Amendment

• Many states passed laws that strict voter ID requirements, and reduced early voting periods

Selection of the President – Electoral College

• Founding fathers, the Electoral College

• Some influence of the people, no direct elections

• Each state selects presidential electors

• State Legislatures design methods for choosing electors

• Electors casted their vote on state capitals

• Send to capital, president and Senate open it

Problems with the Electoral College

1. Tie between two candidates

Solution: House of Representatives picks a candidate

2. Multiple candidates, nobody can reach required majority

Solution: House of Representatives picks a candidate

3. Elections at odds popular vote:

• Jhon Quincy Adams 1824

• Rutherford Hayes in 1876

• Benjamin Harrison in 1888

• Bush 2000

• Trump 2016

Presidential Term Limits

• 1. Framers allowed unlimited eligibility in the Constitution 1787

• 2. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson’s declined to serve a third term

• 3. Theodore Roosevelt decided against running for a third term in the election of 1908, but lost

• Breaking of the tradition in 1940 and 1944 by Franklin Roosevelt

• 4. The ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951

• FDR only President to serve more than two terms

FDR Presidential Terms and the 22nd Amendment

• Served as Commander-in-Chief to a massive American military force during the war

• Use of his powers were somehow justified, concerns after war

Twenty-Second Amendment Section 1:

• No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once…

Election of the Vice-president

• Originally, the Vice-president was the loser

• President and Vice-president from different parties

• The 1800 Tie: Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, tied for the presidency, forcing the House of Representatives to vote 36 times before selecting Jefferson

• Twelfth Amendment: Elections for president and Vice president have separate ballots (1804)

Vice-president Line of Succession 25th Amendment

• 1965 Congress recommended additional changes in the Constitution

• Following John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963. Johnson’s ascension left the vice presidency vacant.

• Speaker of the House was 73 yrs old

• Vacancy occurs, the president nominates a new vice president

• Takes office upon confirmation by majority vote in both houses of Congress.

Bush v. Gore (2000) facts

Background of the 2000 Election:

•Presidential candidates: George W. Bush (R) vs. Al Gore (D)

•Florida’s 25 electoral votes were decisive •Initial margin: Bush led by 1,780 votes → triggered automatic recount (less than 0.5 percent difference)

•Machine recount reduced margin to 250 votes

•What was the problem with the machine recount?

Obsolete Punching Card Voting Machines:

• "Chads" issues: The punch-card system required voters to physically punch a hole through. If the voter did not fully detach the perforated piece of paper (a "chad"), the machine would not register the vote

• "Dimpled chads" / "Pregnant chads": Chads that were only indented or showed a bulge but not fully punched through.

• Inconsistent counting standards

The Recount Controversy:

• Al Gore requested manual recounts in 4 Democratic-leaning counties

• Counties struggled to meet the 7-day certification deadline

• Secretary of State Katherine Harris rejected late returns

• Certified winner by 537 votes

Legal Battle Begins:

•Al Gore sued to continue recounts

•Florida Supreme Court ordered statewide manual recount of undervotes

•The rules governing manual recounts, (voter intent) were not uniform across the state of Florida.

•Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

•Recount halted on December 9, 2000

•Should courts intervene in election disputes, or should they be resolved politically?

Bush v Gore Constitutional Issues

•Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment): Were voters treated equally?

•Article II: Did the Florida Supreme Court overstep by changing election procedures?

•Federalism: Role of state vs. federal courts in elections

Supreme Court Decision

•Per Curiam Opinion: 7–2 that recount violated Equal Protection

•Remedy (5–4): No time to implement a fair recount before federal deadline

• Recount procedures varied by county → unequal treatment of voters

• No uniform standard for determining voter intent

• Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas concurred: state court overstepped

Dissenting Opinions

• Souter & Breyer: Recount flawed but fixable

• Stevens: Decision undermined state courts and public trust

• Ginsburg: Federalism concerns; Court should not have intervened

Bush v Gore Justice Stevens

“Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner... the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” — Justice Stevens

Bush v Gore Aftermath and Impact

• Al Gore conceded on December 13, 2000

•Decision remains controversial

•Sparked debates on:

•Judicial partisanship

•Electoral reform: Gore won the popular vote by 543,895 votes, but lost the electoral college vote

•Role of the Supreme Court in democracy

Legacy of Bush v. Gore

• In 2012, Justice Antonin Scalia: “My court didn’t bring the case into the courts; it was brought into the courts by Al Gore. He is the one who wanted courts to decide the question,”

• Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the majority, later said in 2013 she had regrets about the decision.

• “took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue. … Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’”