Possible Supreme Court Outcomes for Internet Shopping and Railroads
In 2010, Colorado enacted a law that required out-of-state merchants to report transactions to their customers and to state tax authorities. (Liptak, 2014) Direct Marketing Association sued Colorado Department of Revenue Executive Director, Barbara Brohl, because they believe the law violates the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce. A federal trial court agreed but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit did not agree but instead held that the Tax Injunction Act ousted the district court of authority to impose Colorado’s tax collection law. Does the Tax Injunction Act strip federal court of its authority over a law suit of non-taxpayers to impose an enforcement of
…show more content…
646, 62 Stat. 932.) I could not find where Colorado’s reporting requirements enjoin, suspend, or restrain the assessment, levy, or collection of taxes. The reporting should take place before the collecting takes place, therefore I feel the court will answer, no. Since Colorado’s reporting law does not affect any of the Tax Injunction Act categories the federal court could hear the case.
As far as the railroad case in concerned, a trade group has challenged a federal law in which they feel gives Amtrak too much power over freight railroad companies. The U.S. Court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the government because Congress had improperly delegated legislative authority to Amtrak. (Liptak, 2014) Currently Amtrak can play a role in setting performance standards. They can pressure companies that own rail lines to improve the routes for passenger trains. How much authority can Congress give to others to make
The case of Sabina Loving, et al. v. Internal Revenue Service, et al. was originally filed on March 13, 2012 by three independent tax preparers. Sabina Loving of Chicago, IL; John Gambino of Hoboken, NJ; and Elmer Kilian of Eagle, WI. alleged that the IRS had over-stepped its authority when they required tax preparers be licensed. According to Kimberly Stanley J.D., LL.M., “about 40 percent of paid return preparers are attorneys, CPAs, or enrolled agents, the remaining 60 percent have no professional credential or license at all” (Stanley, “Loving v. IRS and Tax Return Preparer Regulations”). Many of these preparers have been in business for decades and had a legitimate dispute against the certification requirements. In 2012, the
Instead, the Constitution grants Congress the power to pass legislation regulating all commerce bar intrastate trade (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3). Coupled with the subsequent clause enabling Congress to pass any legislation they deem necessary in order to carry out the laws passed by dint of the body’s Constitutionally-enumerated powers (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18), the enumerated power to regulate interstate and international commerce endows Congress with a significant capacity to control the nation’s
Federal supremacy was also finally solidified by this case. New York said that the Federal Coasting license that Thomas Gibbons had was useless in New York waters. Thus this sets-up the great issue of the day state gov't v. federal gov't. But as New York and the rest of the United States finally gets into it's head that the Constitution is the law of the land and that in Article IV, it states that "federal laws supersedes state laws"
As ordered by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Congress was given the power to “exercise continuous watchfulness” over the executive branch and its subsidiary agencies and programs. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 went one step further in granting oversight powers to Congress by authorizing House and Senate committees to “review and study, on a continuing basis the application, administration and execution” of laws.
Did the Constitution implicitly prohibit or exclude states from passing laws that have to do with commerce? Is the ability to regulate interstate commerce a concurrent power of the state, or only reserved to the federal
The taxpayer, Harriet Frothingham, in Frothingham v. Mellon did not have standing in court because the burden was not on her personally. In order to have standing in Court, the party suing must be able to show injury and controversy. She had neither because her concern was the effects the statute would bring towards her property. The only way that Frothingham would have been eligible to sue was if the Congressional Act actually caused her property to be taken away to do an increase in taxation. Her case was not ripe. The decision from Frothingham v. Mellon was interpreted as a prohibition on taxpayer lawsuits and stood for forty-five years until Flast v. Cohen.
Munn v. Illinois (1877), is one of six cases, known as Granger cases that the Court decided along the same lines. Chief Justice Waite argued that the states may regulate the use of private property "when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good." In the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois case (1886), the Court ruled that states did not have the right to control interstate commerce that right belongs to the Congress. Justice Samuel Miller adds: “the power of Congress to make such reasonable regulations as the interests of interstate commerce may demand, without denuding the States of their just powers over their own roads and their own corporations.” In 1877, Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission charged with regulating and monitoring interstate
Yes, I think Congress has too much power. Because under the constitution, Congress has the most important power and that is to make/change laws. The Powers of Congress-http://www.ushistory.org/gov/6a.asp) In this paper I will explain to you how Congress has too much power, it being split into two large bicameral legislatures, they have the power of impeachment, and they have the power to approve the spending of federal money. Congress is split into two large bicameral legislatures, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
In the Supreme Court Case Gonzales v. Raich on June 6th, 2005, physician-recommended marijuana users Angel Raich and Diane Monson argued that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) allowed the United States Congress to abuse the Constitution-granted power of the Commerce Clause (Rosenbaum). Consequently, Raich and Monson’s case contributed greatly to the debate of federalism under the United States law (Rosenbaum). As demonstrated by the Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Raich, the role of the People is to notice a wrong in the government and attempt to make a change to better benefit the People, including either limiting or increasing the government.
... their rulings. They do not make the laws; that is the job of Congress. Their primary goal is to interpret and decide the constitutionality of federal law. As stated previously from Section 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution about the establishment of the Supreme Court and creation of the lower federal courts, the combination of these court systems represents the original Framer’s compromise to establish a national court and allow state courts to exercise jurisdiction in disputes falling under federal law.
The Commerce Clause derives out of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This Clause was established in 1787 and gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” (The Legal Information Institute). This is to ensure that the Constitution is balancing certain powers for the federal government. On the other hand, the Tenth Amendment states that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (The Legal Information Institute). In past cases, such has Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States, United States v. Lopez and United States v.
...nancial. However, as set out by the Court in Allied-Bruce and Southland Corp the FAA confines the level to which any given state court and statue can circumvent the specified purpose of the Act and limit the rights of involved parties who have arrived into arbitration arrangements (Hayford, 2000).
The decision was fueled by the fact that the Federal government had powers not specifically stated in the constitution (implied powers). I feel that the result of this court case strengthened the Federal government. It puts an emphasis on the implied powers of the Federal government and started the decline of the States powers. The powers are divided by the idea of federalism but I feel there is still an unbalance today. The case was very supportive of the powers of Congress and how far they
...ng to our benefit. Congress has several important and express responsibilities and while at times they may attempt to flex those powers in ways we don't agree with, or take the necessary and proper clause a little too liberally, we the people are always free to challenge them and utilize the powers given to us as free citizens to help decide how far those powers can really extend.
This industry has created a lot of job opportunities. Approximately 10000 lobbyist are employed. So, lobbying represents voice of the people to law marker as well as creating employment opportunities. It is not good to say that lobbyists are people or interest groups working to make decisions in their favor because they also need to comply with their laws that vary by jurisdiction. They have to report their activities .Generally, they don’t have to report their expenditure of over $114 per day (Ross, R.) .It cannot be assumed that lobbyists could persuade legislator to change a vote for a nice meal or gesture. I believe that legislator have their monopoly if they were not any group or body that aware them step by step. Interest groups have very vivid limitations on money that they can contribute to campaign. So, they are there just to take the voice of the people to legislator. Therefore, I don’t think that the government should place more rigid limitations and more oversight on the interest groups even who have access to greater funds. Making more rigid limitations for an equal count of voices could diminish the voices of those workers, laborers, professional people, and businessman. Government should work more to create space or working environment to those people than to make rigid rules and regulations making their daily life harder to