Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources
Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study
Go to the blog

Legislative Power & Judicial Review: Key Supreme Court Cases - Prof. Desiree S. Pedescleau, Study notes of Political Science

Spelman CollegePolitical Science
Prof. Desiree S. Pedescleaux

Information on seven landmark supreme court cases that dealt with the legislative power of congress and its relationship with the states. The cases include mcculloch v. Maryland, which established the power of congress to charter a national bank; south carolina vs. Katzenbach, which upheld the voting rights act of 1965; city of boerne v. Flores, which limited the religious freedom restoration act; missouri v. Holland, which upheld a treaty protecting migratory birds; j.w. Hampton jr. & co. V. United states, which upheld congress's authority to delegate commerce power to the executive branch; ins v. Chadha, which struck down a provision allowing a one-house veto of executive actions; and clinton v. City of new york, which held that the line item veto act violated the presentment clause. Each case includes the facts, question, conclusion, and legal provision involved.

Typology: Study notes

2010/2011

Uploaded on 02/14/2011

sheshe2003132003
sheshe2003132003 🇺🇸

2 documents

1 / 8

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Chapter 3: Legislative Power
McCulloch v. Maryland
Facts of the Case:
In 1816, Congress chartered The Second
Bank of the United States. In 1818, the
state of Maryland passed legislation to
impose taxes on the bank. James W.
McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore
branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.
Question:
The case presented two questions: Did
Congress have the authority to establish
the bank? Did the Maryland law
unconstitutionally interfere with
congressional powers?
Conclusion:
In a unanimous decision, the Court held
that Congress had the power to
incorporate the bank and that Maryland
could not tax instruments of the national
government employed in the execution of
constitutional powers. Writing for the
Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that
Congress possessed unenumerated
powers not explicitly outlined in the
Constitution. Marshall also held that while
the states retained the power of taxation,
"the constitution and the laws made in
pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they
control the constitution and laws of the
respective states, and cannot be
controlled by them."
Decisions
Decision: 7 votes for McCulloch, 0 vote(s)
against
Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section
8 Clauses 1 and 18
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8

Partial preview of the text

Download Legislative Power & Judicial Review: Key Supreme Court Cases - Prof. Desiree S. Pedescleau and more Study notes Political Science in PDF only on Docsity!

Chapter 3: Legislative Power

McCulloch v. Maryland

Facts of the Case:

In 1816, Congress chartered The Second

Bank of the United States. In 1818, the

state of Maryland passed legislation to

impose taxes on the bank. James W.

McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore

branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.

Question:

The case presented two questions: Did

Congress have the authority to establish

the bank? Did the Maryland law

unconstitutionally interfere with

congressional powers?

Conclusion:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held

that Congress had the power to

incorporate the bank and that Maryland

could not tax instruments of the national

government employed in the execution of

constitutional powers. Writing for the

Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that

Congress possessed unenumerated

powers not explicitly outlined in the

Constitution. Marshall also held that while

the states retained the power of taxation,

"the constitution and the laws made in

pursuance thereof are supreme.. .they

control the constitution and laws of the

respective states, and cannot be

controlled by them."

Decisions

Decision: 7 votes for McCulloch, 0 vote(s)

against

Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section

8 Clauses 1 and 18

South Carolina vs. Katzenbach

Facts of the Case:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented

states from using a "test or device" (such

as literacy tests) to deny citizens the right

to vote. Federal examiners, under the

Attorney General's jurisdiction, were

empowered to intervene to investigate

election irregularities.

Question:

Did the Act violate the states' rights to

implement and control elections?

Conclusion:

The Court upheld the law. Noting that the

enforcement clause of the Fifteenth

Amendment gave Congress "full remedial

powers" to prevent racial discrimination

in voting, the Act was a "legitimate

response" to the "insidious and pervasive

evil" which had denied blacks the right to

vote since the Fifteenth Amendment's

adoption in 1870.

Decisions

Decision: 8 votes for Katzenbach, 1

vote(s) against

Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of

Missouri v. Holland

Facts of the Case:

In December 1916, the United States and Great Britain entered into a treaty to protect a number of migratory birds in the U.S. and Canada. Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 in order to facilitate enforcement of the treaty. When Ray P. Holland, the U.S. Game Warden, threatened to arrest citizens of Missouri for violating the Act, the state of Missouri challenged the treaty.

Question:

Did the treaty infringe upon rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment?

Conclusion:

No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the national interest in protecting the wildlife could be protected only by national action. The Court noted that the birds the government sought to protect had no permanent habitats within individual states and argued that "[b]ut for the treaty and the statute there soon might be no birds for any powers to deal with." The Court thus upheld the exercise of the treaty power and thus found no violation of the Tenth Amendment. Decisions

Decision: 7 votes for Holland, 2 vote(s) against

Legal provision: Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918;

US Const. Amend 10

J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States

Facts of the Case:

The Tariff Act of 1922 delegated the authority to set and impose customs duties on articles of imported merchandise. When, under a proclamation of the President, J.W. Hampton & Company was assessed a higher customs duty than was fixed by statute, the company sought relief in the courts.

Question:

Did the Tariff Act's delegation of commerce power to the Executive Branch violate the Separation of Powers principle?

Conclusion:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress, within "defined limits," could vest discretion in Executive officers to make public regulations and direct the details of statutory execution. The Court argued that the same principle that allowed Congress to fix rates in interstate commerce also enabled it to remit to a rate-making body under the control of the Executive branch.

Clinton v. City of New York (p.141)

Facts of the Case:

This case consolidates two separate challenges to the constitutionality of two cancellations, made by President William J. Clinton, under the Line Item Veto Act ("Act"). In the first, the City of New York, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York. In the second, the Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of

  1. The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives. After a district court held the Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on expedited appeal.

Question:

Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?

Conclusion:

Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision the Court first established that both the City of New York, and its affiliates, and the farmers' cooperative suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President's actions. The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e. signed) or rejected (i.e. vetoed) by the President. The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers. Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for City of New York, 3 vote(s)

against

Legal provision: Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 2:

Separation of Powers

  • United States v. North p.