But how many people actually realize that the Bill that taught us all about the law-making function of Congress is actually an unconstitutional bill? These powers are laid out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Overall, Congress has 18 enumerated powers. Those powers are:. Last, the Tenth Amendment reserves the powers not granted to Congress to the States or the people. However, this law does not fall within one of the powers listed above and thus would exceed the authority granted to Congress by the Constitution.
See U. Lopez, U. Surely, a bus stopping at a railroad crossing would not substantially affect interstate commerce. The entire point of the law is to protect children from deadly accidents, not to ensure some shipment of widgets get from Ohio to Nebraska. Even if the shipment was the real purpose and I doubt anyone in their right mind would argue it was , forcing only school buses to stop at railroad crossings would be greatly under-inclusive to serve that purpose.
Even though the Bill probably died, he lives on in our hearts and minds because of his powerful lessons on the legislative process.
However, in United States v. Robel, U. The dissenters viewed the statute as merely expressing in shorthand the characteristics of those persons who were likely to utilize union responsibilities to accomplish harmful acts; Congress could validly conclude that all members of the Communist Party possessed those characteristics. The majority's decision in Brown cast in doubt certain statutes and certain statutory formulations that had been held not to constitute bills of attainder.
For example, a predecessor of the statute struck down in Brown , which had conditioned a union's access to the NLRB upon the filing of affidavits by all of the union's officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party, had been upheld, 12 Footnote American Communications Ass'n v.
Douds, U. The statute there forbade any partner or employee of a firm primarily engaged in underwriting securities from being a director of a national bank. Chief Justice Warren distinguished the prior decision and the statute on three grounds from the statute then under consideration.
First, the union statute inflicted its deprivation upon the members of a suspect political group in typical bill-of-attainder fashion, unlike the statute in Agnew.
Second, in the Agnew statute, Congress did not express a judgment upon certain men or members of a particular group; it rather concluded that any man placed in the two positions would suffer a temptation any man might yield to. Third, Congress established in the Agnew statute an objective standard of conduct expressed in shorthand which precluded persons from holding the two positions.
Apparently withdrawing from the Brown analysis in upholding a statute providing for governmental custody of documents and recordings accumulated during the tenure of former President Nixon, 17 Footnote The Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, Pub. For an application of this statute, see Nixon v. Warner Communications, U. Administrator of General Services, U. Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Field.
Income tax provisions of the tariff act of Pollock v. Concurring: Fuller, C. Matter of Heff, U. Nice, U. Adair v. Dissenting: McKenna, Holmes. Fairbank v.
Rassmussen v. Concurring specially: Harlan, Brown. The act was upheld as to the District of Columbia in Hyde v. Southern Ry. Gutierrez, U. Coyle v. Smith, U. Keller v. Dissenting: Holmes, Harlan, Moody. Provision of Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act creating a presumption that possessor of cocaine knew of its illegal importation into the United States held, in light of the fact that more cocaine is produced domestically than is brought into the country and in absence of any showing that defendant could have known his cocaine was imported, if it was, inapplicable to support conviction from mere possession of cocaine.
Turner v. Concurring specially: Black, Douglas. Newberry v. Classic, U. Moreland, U. Hammer v. Dagenhart, U. Eisner v.
Macomber, , U. Dissenting: Holmes, Day, Brandeis, Clarke. Knickerbocker Ice Co. Stewart, U. Dissenting: Holmes, Pitney, Brandeis, Clarke. Adkins v. Parrish, U. Evans v. Gore, U. Miles v. Graham, U. Woodrough, U. Dissenting: Holmes, Brandeis. Nichols v. Coolidge, U. Concurring specially only in the result : Holmes, Brandeis, Sanford, Stone.
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. Child Labor Tax Case , U. Act of October 22, 41 Stat. Cohen Grocery Co. Concurring: White, C. Weeds, Inc. Provision of Revenue Act of abating the deduction 4 percent of mean reserves allowed from taxable income of life insurance companies in general by the amount of interest on their tax-exempts, and so according no relative advantage to the owners of the tax-exempt securities, held to destroy a guaranteed exemption.
National Life Ins. Dissenting: Brandeis, Holmes, Stone. Washington v. Dissenting: Brandeis. The gift tax provisions of the Revenue Act of , applicable to gifts made during the calendar year, were held invalid under the Fifth Amendment insofar as they applied to gifts made before passage of the act.
Untermyer v. Anderson, U. Dissenting: Holmes, Brandeis, Stone. Heiner v. Donnan, U. Dissenting: Stone, Brandeis. Constantine, U. Dissenting: Cardozo, Brandeis, Stone. Butler, U. Dissenting: Stone, Brandeis, Cardozo. The majority of the Court, however, held plaintiff not entitled to recover under the circumstances. Perry v. Concurring: Hughes, C. Schechter Poultry Corp. Panama Refining Co. Ryan, U. Temporary reduction of 15 percent in retired pay of judges, retired from service but subject to performance of judicial duties under the Act of March 1, 45 Stat.
Provision for conversion of state building and loan associations into federal associations, upon vote of 51 percent of the votes cast at a meeting of stockholders called to consider such action, held an encroachment on reserved powers of state. Ashton v.
Cameron County Dist. Justices concurring specially: Thomas. Railroad Retirement Bd. Alton R. Amendments of Agricultural Adjustment Act held not within the taxing power, the amendments not having cured the defects of the original act held unconstitutional in United States v.
Butler , U. The prohibition in section 5 e 2 of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of on the display of alcohol content on beer labels is inconsistent with the protections afforded to commercial speech by the First Amendment. Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. Justice concurring specially: Stevens. Carter v. Carter Coal Co. Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Cardozo, Brandeis, Stone. Boos v. Barry, U. Cardiff, U. Dissenting: Burton. Tot v. Act of October 14, 54 Stat.
Provision of Aliens and Nationality Code 8 U. Trop v. Dulles, U. Concurring: Warren, C. Act of October 14, Pub. Sessions v. Morales-Santana, U. Justices concurringRoberts, : C. Lovett, U. Concurring specially: Frankfurter, Reed. Act of September 27, 58 Stat. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, U. Matal v. Tam U. Justices concurring in the judgment: Roberts, C. District court decision holding invalid under First and Fifth Amendments statute prohibiting parades or assemblages on United States Capitol grounds is summarily affirmed.
Jackson, U. Dissenting: White, Black. Grace, U. Concurring in part and dissenting in part: Marshall, Stevens. Toth v. Quarles, U. Dissenting: Reed, Burton, Minton. Reid v. Covert, U. Concurring: Black, Douglas, Warren, C. Insofar as the aforementioned provision is invoked in time of peace for the trial of noncapital offenses committed on land bases overseas by employees of the armed forces who have not been inducted or who have not voluntarily enlisted therein, it violates the Sixth Amendment.
McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, U. Kinsella v. Grisham v. Hagan, U. Statutory scheme authorizing the Postmaster General to close the mails to distributors of obscene materials held unconstitutional in the absence of procedural provisions to assure prompt judicial determination that protected materials were not being restrained. Califano v. Goldfarb, U. Provision of Subversive Activities Control Act making it unlawful for member of Communist front organization to work in a defense plant held to be an overbroad infringement of the right of association protected by the First Amendment.
Robel, U. Aptheker v. Secretary of State, U. Provisions of Subversive Activities Control Act of requiring in lieu of registration by the Communist Party registration by Party members may not be applied to compel registration by, or to prosecute for refusal to register, alleged members who have asserted their privilege against self-incrimination, inasmuch as registration would expose such persons to criminal prosecution under other laws.
Provision of Railroad Retirement Act similar to section voided in Califano v. Goldfarb no. Afroyim v. Rusk, U. Dissenting: Harlan, Clark, Stewart, White. Schneider v. Dissenting: Clark, Harlan, White. Act of June 27, ch. INS v. Chadha, U. Justices concurring: Burger, C. Act of August 16, 68A Stat.
Marchetti v. Provisions of tax laws requiring possessors of marijuana to register and to pay a transfer tax may not be used over an assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination to compel registration or to prosecute for failure to register. Leary v. Concurring specially: Warren, C. Haynes v. Provision of tax laws providing for forfeiture of property used in violating internal revenue laws may not be constitutionally used in face of invocation of privilege against self-incrimination to condemn money in possession of gambler who had failed to comply with the registration and reporting scheme held void in Marchetti v.
United States , U. A federal tax on insurance premiums paid to foreign insurers not subject to the federal income tax violates the Export Clause, Art. IBM Corp. Justices dissenting: Kennedy, Ginsburg. Provision of Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act creating a presumption that possessor of marijuana knew of its illegal importation into the United States held, in absence of showing that all marijuana in United States was of foreign origin and that domestic users could know that their marijuana was more likely than not of foreign origin, unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Act of August 10, 70A Stat. Servicemen may not be charged under the Act and tried in military courts because of the commission of non-service connected crimes committed off-post and off-duty which are subject to civilian court jurisdiction where the guarantees of the Bill of Rights are applicable. Parker, U. Dissenting: Harlan, Stewart, White. Proviso of statute permitting the wearing of United States military apparel in theatrical productions only if the portrayal does not tend to discredit the armed forces imposes an unconstitutional restraint upon First Amendment freedoms and precludes a prosecution under 18 U.
Regan v. Time, Inc. Justice dissenting: Stevens. Frontiero v. Richardson, U. Provision of Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of making it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or, with the exception of clerical or custodial positions, as an employee of a labor union held to be a bill of attainder and unconstitutional.
Brown, U. Provision of District of Columbia laws requiring that a person to be eligible to receive welfare assistance must have resided in the District for at least one year impermissibly classified persons on the basis of an assertion of the right to travel interstate and therefore held to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Shapiro v. Thompson, U. Provision of Higher Education Facilities Act of which in effect removed restriction against religious use of facilities constructed with federal funds after 20 years held to violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment inasmuch as the property will still be of considerable value at the end of the period and removal of the restriction would constitute a substantial governmental contribution to religion.
Spending Clause does not support authority in the Medicaid Act for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to terminate all future Medicaid payments to a state whose Medicaid plan does not comply with new coverage mandated by the Affordable Care Act. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, U. Concurring: Roberts, C. Jiminez v.
Weinberger, U. Concurring: Burger, C. Shelby Cty. Holder, U. Justices concurring: Roberts, C. Those sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act extending wage and hour coverage to the employees of state and local governments held invalid because Congress lacks the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate employee activities in areas of traditional governmental functions of the states. National League of Cities v. Usery, U. Dissenting: Brennan, White, Marshall, Stevens.
Act of November 7, Pub. Communications Act provision banning noncommercial educational stations receiving grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from engaging in editorializing violates the First Amendment. FCC v. League of Women Voters, U. Arizona , U. The warnings to suspects required by Miranda are Constitution-based rules. Dickerson v. United States, , U. Justices concurring: Rehnquist, C. Act of June 19, Pub.
A federal prohibition on disclosure of the contents of an illegally intercepted electronic communication violates the First Amendment as applied to a talk show host and a community activist who had played no part in the illegal interception, and who had lawfully obtained tapes of the illegally intercepted cellular phone conversation. Bartnicki v.
Vopper, U. Provision of Voting Rights Act Amendments of that set a minimum voting age qualification of 18 in state and local elections held to be unconstitutional because beyond the powers of Congress to legislate. Oregon v. Mitchell, U. Provision of Occupational Safety and Health Act authorizing inspections of covered work places in industry without warrants held to violate Fourth Amendment.
Marshall v. Dissenting: Stevens, Blackmun, Rehnquist. Provision of Food Stamp Act disqualifying from participation in program any household containing an individual unrelated by birth, marriage, or adoption to any other member of the household violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, U. Provision of Food Stamp Act disqualifying from participation in program any household containing a person 18 years or older who had been claimed as a dependent child for income tax purposes in the present or preceding tax year by a taxpayer not a member of the household violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
0コメント