Chapter III - Check the Government!
Chapter III - Check the Government! GOVT 2306
Popular in State and Local Government
Popular in History
verified elite notetaker
This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Ming-Han Lu on Friday September 25, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to GOVT 2306 at University of Texas at Dallas taught by Euel Elliott in Summer 2015. Since its upload, it has received 36 views. For similar materials see State and Local Government in History at University of Texas at Dallas.
Reviews for Chapter III - Check the Government!
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 09/25/15
Chapter 111 Sept 14 Monday September 14 2015 914 AM US Constitution ARTICLES IV Federalism V Amendment VI Supremacy Clause Marbury vs Madison VII How the constitution will be adopted Bill of Rights 110 Amendments 14th privileges and immunities due process equal protection Article I 17th Popular election of the Senators Article II 12th How the President and Vice President are elected 20th Dates on when the President is elected in 22nd Term limits 25th Presidential Disability Article III 11th disallows citizens of one state from pursuing another state Progressive Era Amendments 16th An income tax 17th Direct election of the Senators 18th prohibition 19th women39s suffrage 21th Repeal prohibition 26th 18 year old voting the incremental piecemeal application of the BOR to the states Separation of powers Checks and Balances Limited Government Individua rights Federaism US Constitution Preamble Article I gt Bill of Rights II gt Powers of Government III gt Legislature IV gt Governor Executive Lt Governor Attorney General Land Of ce Texas gives more power to Congress V gt Judiciary VI gt Suffrage VII gt Education Caled for free and ef cient public education Robin Hood Plan the wealthier districts had to transfer of their wealth to the districts that weren39t as wealthy Vlll gt Taxation We do not have a state income tax XI gt Impeachment XVII gt Amendment process Proposition 12 2003 0 Limited damage funds in medical malpractice cases Proposition 2 2005 Texas Constitutions Constitution of 1827 Catholicism was the religion of the state Depu es Constitution of 1836 Bicameral legislature Constitution of 1845 0 Same as 36 Constitution of 1861 Legalizes slavery Constitution of 1866 0 First post civilwar constitution Slavery is abolished Constitution of 1869 0 Reconstruction Constitution Constitution of 1876 Sharpstown quotScandalquot 1972 Early 19705 scandal called for a new Constitution Convention to help reform the constitution There was no real speci c proposals which sealed its fate RatliffJunequot 1999 Proposed for another CC it was held and this was the best shot at reforming the Constitution coming up with a brand new document There were a few things incorporated into the constitution 1 Strengthen executive Unitary 1 Reorganization of executive branch 2 Change the term of of ce for legislature 0 Required term limits 1 Government would appointjudges Chapter III Cont Sept 15 Friday September 18 2015 859 AM Limited Government 0 Separation of powers Checks and balances Individual rights Federalism Republicanism popular control limits on debttax restrictions placed on state government The notion of economy emphasis on agrarian interests in uence of the Grange Ri iffJunell proposa enhanced gubernatorial authority 1 Creating cabinet government Appointment of key officials by governor 2 Term limits for legislatureincreasing terms of office 3 Appointment of judges Texas in a Federal Svstem 0 During this time the tariff was an important issue Linked into slavery 0 John C Calhoun proposed the Theory of Concurrent Majorities States had the right to nullify the federal law States could veto legislature 0 John Marshall was the third chief justice and a fervent federalist John Adam39s midnight appointment 0 He vastly strengthens the powers of the national government 0 Marbury vs Madison 1803 Power of 39 Cornerstone to strengthening the federal government 39 It found the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional 0 Supreme Court now is the arbiter o McCulloch vs Maryland 1819 Gives to Congress the general powers The court ruled violated the Supremacy Clause and Article I Section 8 Maryland was not allowed to tax the Bank of America now acts as the Federal Reserve 0 Gibbons vs Ogden 1825 Defines the way interstate commerce is interpreted It gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce 0 These 3 cases show that we are a nationcentered federalism m of Dual Federziism 1865 Termination of the Civil War 1937 0 State Government was dominant in certain areas of politics Education police powers health and safety and etc Federal Government would be responsible for interstate commerce army economic development railroads Was called the Wedding Cake Layer Cake Federalism because it has distinct layers resembling the state government and national government Collector VS Day 1870 Could the Federal government tax state judicial officers No it was a violation of the 10th amendment violation of the states Plessy VS Ferguson 1896 Ruled a case from Louisiana Ruled that segregated public facilities and transportation were constitutional Plessy remains a controlling decision until 1954 Brown vs Board of Education 1954 Act of 1789 Hammer VS Dagenhart 1918 involved the question the ability of the federal government Congress to regulate child labor It places restrictions on child labor using the interstate commerce clause as justification The courts prior to the New Deal are very concerned with the idea of economic liberty They are keen on protecting on economic liberty It reinforces the idea of states39 rights and dual federalism The Great Depression leads to the election of Roosevelt which leads to the New Deal 1937 Court gives more power to the federal government after the Great Depression West Coast Hotel v Panish 1938 Gives the national government new powers Allowed the federal government to set a oor for minimum wages quotNo state can set a minimum wage set under the federal minimum wagequot Wickard v Filburn 1972 Filburn wants to grow some wheat for the consumption of his family He39s not going to sell it The federal government agricultural part sues Filburn because they want to keep the agricultural prices at the same level The Court ruled in favor of the national government 81 against Filburn Consuming it himself indirectly affects the cost of corn and etc Courts completely changed their thinking after this The Courts give up and says the government can do whatever they want on economic regulation The judicial doctrine goes out of the window They backed off on the national government39s regulation on economy What the Court has done the SC judiciary has been much more willingaggressive in the area of civil rights and civil liberties Gitlow VS New York Court says that states cannot restrict the freedom of speech States are held to a strict standard in terms of any kind of interference in free speech Sweatt vs Painter Court rules that TX cannot establish segregated universities It becomes the precursor to the Brown vs Board of Education Roe VS Wade Constitutional right to protect a woman39s privacy Phyler VS Doe talks about the educational rights of the illegal immigrant children Obergefell vs Hodges gay marriage decisions 0 Strict Scrutiny some things are just inherently suspicious race sexual preference or anything else 0 Rational basis Intermediate Scrutiny test Post1937 It was based on a reasonable consideration Doctrine of Federal Preemption allows the federal government to step into the boundaries of the states Examples of when the Court has rolled back its powers 1965 Voting Rights Act allowed for the federal government to obtain what was called preclearance before any state in the South that has practiced segregation can change their electoral law or voting Shelby County vs Holder the kind of formula that Congress had used to determine whether or not there was a violation in voting rights was outdated Currently there is no preclearance requirement imposed on the states Gonzalez v Raich 2005 Ruled in a 63 decision that the states could not engage in practice of selling marijuana for medical uses because it violated the federal law Arizona v Arizona Tribal Council 2013 Voter Identification tried to pass a law that you needed voter identification It was struck down NFIB v Sebelius Unfunded Mandates leave it to the states to pay for it Independent State Grounds Legal Doctrine States can act in ways that go beyond what is minimally required by the Constitution Ie States have laws that go beyond the SC on search and seizure Kirby v Edgeword 1989 Texas Supreme Court ruled that the way the state funded public education was violating the law