American National Government
American National Government POS 2041
University of Central Florida
Popular in Course
Popular in Political Science
This 25 page Class Notes was uploaded by Sid Maggio DDS on Thursday October 22, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to POS 2041 at University of Central Florida taught by Staff in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 11 views. For similar materials see /class/227538/pos-2041-university-of-central-florida in Political Science at University of Central Florida.
Reviews for American National Government
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 10/22/15
Chisholm v Georgia 2 us 419 1793 Docket Number Abstract Argued February 5 1793 Decided February 18 1793 Facts of the Case In 1777 the Executive Council of Georgia authorized the purchase of needed supplies from a South Carolina businessman After receiving the supplies Georgia did not deliver payments as promised After the merchant39s death the executor of his estate Alexander Chisholm took the case to court in an attempt to collect from the state Georgia maintained that it was a sovereign state not subject to the authority of the federal courts Question Presented Was the state of Georgia subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government Conclusion In a 4to1 decision the justices held that quotthe people of the United Statesquot intended to bind the states by the legislative executive and judicial powers of the national government The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves not by the quotartificial personquot of the State of Georgia The Constitution made clear that controversies between individual states and citizens of other states were under the jurisdiction of federal courts State conduct was subject to judicial review Marbury v Madison 5 us 137 1803 Docket Number Abstract Argued February 11 1803 Decided February 24 1803 Facts of the Case The case began on March 2 1801 when an obscure Federalist William Marbury was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts created by Congress in the last days of John Adams39s presidency but these lastminute appointments were never fully finalized The disgruntled appointees invoked an act of Congress and sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court Question Presented Is Marbury entitled to his appointment Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it And is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests Conclusion Yes yes and it depends The justices held through Marshall39s forceful argument that on the last issue the Constitution was quotthe fundamental and paramount law of the nationquot and that quotan act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is voidquot In other words when the Constitutionthe nation39s highest lawconflicts with an act of the legislature that act is invalid This case establishes the Supreme Court39s power ofjudicial review McCulloch v Maryland 17 us 316 1819 Docket Number Abstract Argued February 22 1819 Decided March 6 1819 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 Presented 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 quotthe 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 themquot Dred Scott v Sandford 60 us 393 1857 Docket Number Abstract Argued February 11 1856 Decided March 6 1857 Facts of the Case Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri From 1833 to 1843 he resided in Illinois a free state and in an area of the Louisiana Territory where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 After returning to Missouri Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man Scott then brought a new suit in federal court Scott39s master maintained that no pureblooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution Question Presented Was Dred Scott free or slave Conclusion Dred Scott was a slave Under Articles III and IV argued Taney no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state and that only Congress could confer national citizenship Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional hoping to end the slavery question once and for all Plessy v Ferguson 163 US 537 1896 Docket Number 210 Abstract Argued April 13 1896 Decided May 18 1896 Facts of the Case The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites In 1892 Homer Adolph Plessywho was seveneighths Caucasiantook a seat in a quotwhites onlyquot car of a Louisiana train He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested Question Presented Is Louisiana39s law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment Conclusion No the state law is within constitutional boundaries The majority upheld stateimposed racial segregation The justices based their decision on the separatebutequal doctrine that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal The phrase quotseparate but equalquot was not part of the opinion Brown conceded that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law But Brown noted that quotin the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color or to enforce social as distinguished from political equality or a commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to eitherquot In short segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 347 us 483 1954 Docket Number 1 Abstract Argued December 8 1952 Reargued December 7 1953 Decided May 17 1954 Subjects Civil Rights Desegregation Schools Facts of the Case Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings curricula qualifications and teacher salaries This case was decided together with Briggs v Elliott and Davis v County School Board of Prince Edward County Question Presented Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment Conclusion Yes Despite the equalization of the schools by quotobjectivequot factors intangible issues foster and maintain inequality Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority The longheld doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education The unanimous opinion sounded the deathknell for all forms of statemaintained racial separation Baker v Carr 369 US 186 1962 Docket Number 6 Abstract Argued April 19 1961 Reargued October 9 1961 Decided March 26 1962 Subjects Judicial Power Standing to Sue Legal Injury Facts of the Case Charles W Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state39s General Assembly was virtually ignored Baker39s suit detailed how Tennessee39s reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state Question Presented Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment Conclusion In an opinion which explored the nature of quotpolitical questionsquot and the appropriateness of Court action in them the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue In his opinion Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436 1966 Docket Number 759 Abstract Argued February 28 1966 Decided June 13 1966 SubjectS Criminal Procedure Miranda Warnings Facts of the Case The Court was called upon to consider the constitutionality of a number of instances ruled on jointly in which defendants were questioned quotwhile in custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom in any significant wayquot In Vignera v New York the petitioner was questioned by police made oral admissions and signed an inculpatory statement all without being notified of his right to counsel Similarly in Westover v United States the petitioner was arrested by the FBI interrogated and made to sign statements without being notified of his right to counsel Lastly in California v Stewart local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of his right to counsel In all these cases suspects were questioned by police officers detectives or prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world In none of the cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation Question Presented Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifiying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment Conclusion The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards quoteffective to secure the privilege against selfincriminationquot The Court noted that quotthe modern practice of incustody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically orientedquot and that quotthe blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisitionquot The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations Lemon v Kurtzman 403 us 602 1971 Docket Number 89 Abstract Argued March 3 1971 Decided June 28 1971 SubjectS First Amendment Parochiaid Facts of the Case This case was heard concurrently with two others Early v DiCenso 1971 and Robinson v DiCenso 1971 The cases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island In Pennsylvania a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries textbooks and instructional materials for secular subjects to nonpublic schools The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in nonpublic elementary schools Each statute made aid available to quotchurchrelated educational institutionsquot Question Presented Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment39s Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to quotchurchrelated educational institutionsquot Conclusion Yes Writing for the majority Chief Justice Burger articulated a three part test for laws dealing with religious establishment To be constitutional a statute must have quota secular legislative purposequot it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion and it must not foster quotan excessive government entanglement with religionquot The Court found that the subsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of religious inculcation and that the quotcontinuing state surveillancequot necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would inevitably entangle the state in religious affairs The Court also noted the presence of an unhealthy quotdivisive political potentialquot concerning legislation which appropriates support to religious schools Roe v Wade 41o us 113 1973 Docket Number 7018 Abstract Decided January 22 1973 Reargued October 11 1972 Argued December 13 1971 Subjects Privacy Abortion Including Contraceptives Facts of the Case Roe a Texas resident sought to terminate her pregancy by abortion Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman39s life After granting certiorari the Court heard arguments twice The first time Roe39s attorney Sarah Weddington could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart Her opponent Jay Floyd misfired from the start Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round Her new opponent Robert Flowers came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall Question Presented Does the Constitution embrace a woman39s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion Conclusion The Court held that a woman39s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy recognized in Griswold v Connecticut protected by the Fourteenth Amendment The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters As a result the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court39s ruling United States v Nixon 418 us 683 1974 Docket Number 731766 Abstract Argued July 8 1974 Decided July 24 1974 SubjectS Criminal Procedure Discovery and Inspection Facts of the Case A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon39s closest aides in the Watergate affair The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming quotexecutive privilegequot which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest Decided together with Nixon v United States Question Presented Is the President39s right to safeguard certain information using his quotexecutive privilegequot confidentiality power entirely immune from judicial review Conclusion No The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of highlevel communications without more can sustain an absolute unqualified presidential privilege The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs but gave preference to quotthe fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration ofjusticequot Therefore the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes Regents of the University of California v Bakke 438 US 265 1978 Docket Number 76811 Abstract Argued October 12 1977 Decided June 26 1978 SubjectS Civil Rights Affirmative Action Facts of the Case Allan Bakke a thirtyfiveyearold white man had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis He was rejected both times The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for quotqualifiedquot minorities as part of the university39s affirmative action program in an effort to redress longstanding unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession Bakke39s qualifications college GPA and test scores exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke39s applications were rejected Bakke contended first in the California courts then in the Supreme Court that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race Question Presented Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment39s equal protection clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke39s application for admission to its medical school Conclusion No and yes There was no single majority opinion Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Justice Lewis F Powell Jr agreed casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke However in his opinion Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment The remaining fourjustices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible Powell joined that opinion as well contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria So the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality by finding for Bakke while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action Webster v Reproductive Health Services 492 US 490 1989 Docket Number 88605 Abstract Argued April 26 1989 Decided July 3 1989 SubjectS Privacy Abortion Including Contraceptives Facts of the Case In 1986 the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortions The statute39s preamble indicated that quotthe life of each human being begins at conceptionquot and the law codified the following restrictions public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother39s life encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth or more week of pregnancy Lower courts struck down the restrictions Question Presented Did the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Conclusion In a controversial and highly fractured decision the Court held that none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri legislation were unconstitutional First the Court held that the preamble had not been applied in any concrete manner for the purposes of restricting abortions and thus did not present a constitutional question Second the Court held that the Due Process Clause did not require states to enter into the business of abortion and did not create an affirmative right to governmental aid in the pursuit of constitutional rights Third the Court found that no case or controversy existed in relation to the counseling provisions of the law Finally the Court upheld the viability testing requirements arguing that the State39s interest in protecting potential life could come into existence before the point of viability The Court emphasized that it was not revisiting the essential portions of the holding in Roe v Wade Shaw v Reno 509 US 630 1993 Docket Number 92357 Abstract Argued April 20 1993 Decided June 28 1993 SubjectS Civil Rights Reapportionment Facts of the Case The US Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black majority district North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two blackmajority districts One of these districts was in parts no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives After a threejudge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari Question Presented Did the North Carolina residents39 claim that the State created a racially gerrymandered district raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment39s Equal Protection Clause Conclusion Yes The Court held that although North Carolina39s reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race The unusual district while perhaps created by noble intentions seemed to exceed what was reasonably necessary to avoid racial imbalances After concluding that the residents39 claim did give rise to an equal protection challenge the Court remanded adding that in the absence of contradictory evidence the District Court would have to decide whether or not some compelling governmental interest justified North Carolina39s plan US Term Limits v Thornton 514 us 779 1995 Docket Number 931456 Abstract Argued November 29 1994 Decided May 22 1995 Subjects Federalism Miscellaneous Federalism Facts of the Case On November 3 1992 Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution The quotTerm Limitation Amendmentquot in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for reelection as a US Representative from Arkansas Similarly the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for reelection as a US Senator from Arkansas Question Presented Can states alter those qualifications for the US Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution Conclusion No The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and quothas the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectlyquot Furthermore quotallowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 39more perfect Unionquot39 United States v Lopez 514 US 549 1995 Docket Number 931260 Abstract Argued November 8 1994 Decided April 26 1995 Subjects Economic Activity Misc Economic Regulation Facts of the Case Alfonzo Lopez a 12th grade high school student carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio Texas high school He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises The next day the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute the GunFree School Zones Act of 1990 The act forbids quotany individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that he knowsis a school zonequot Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months39 imprisonment and two years39 supervised release Question Presented Is the 1990 GunFree School Zones Act forbiding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause Conclusion Yes The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might through repetition elsewhere have a substantial effect on interstate commerce The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with quotcommercequot or any sort of economic activity Clinton v City of New York 524 us 417 1998 Docket Number 971374 Abstract Argued April 27 1998 Decided June 25 1998 SubjectS Miscellaneous Miscellaneous 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 quotActquot In the first the City of New York two hospital associations a hospital and two health care unions challenged the President39s cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government39s ability to recoup nearly 26 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York In the second the Snake River farmer39s cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President39s cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers39 cooperatives After a district court held the Act unconstitutional the Supreme Court granted certiorari on expedited appeal Question Presented Did the President39s 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 6to3 decision the Court first established that both the City of New York and its affiliates and the farmers39 cooperative suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President39s actions The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved ie signed or rejected ie 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 quotamendedquot the laws before him Such discretion the Court concluded violated the quotfinely wroughtquot legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers Bush v Gore 531 US 98 2000 Docket Number 00949 Abstract Argued December 11 2000 Decided December 12 2000 SubjectS Judicial Power Civil Rights Facts of the Case Following the US Supreme Court39s decision in Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Board and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore39s contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results on December 8 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from MiamiDade County It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all quotundervotesquot ballots which did not indicate a vote for president because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt Governor George Bush and his running mate Richard Cheney filed a request for review in the US Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court39s decision The US Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9 It heard oral argument two days later Question Presented Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the US Constitution by making new election law Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution Conclusion Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by quotlater arbitrary and disparate treatmentquot the per curiam opinion held 72 that the Florida Supreme Court39s scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional Even if the recount was fair in theory it was unfair in practice The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot precinct to precinct and county to county Because of those and other procedural difficulties the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the quotsafe harborquot provided by 3 USC Section 5 Loathe to make broad precedents the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case Rehnquist in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court39s decision made new election law which only the state legislature may do Breyer and Souter writing separately agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court39s recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause but they dissented with respect to the remedy believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake Ginsburg and Stevens writing separately argued that for reasons of federalism the Florida Supreme Court39s decision ought to be respected Moreover the Florida decision was fundamentally right the Constitution requires that every vote be counted