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. The reason why the taxpayer in Flast v. Cohen did have standing is because he passed
the Flast doctrine that was established in order to break down the barrier from Frothingham v. Mellon. In order to bring a taxpayer lawsuit, the party suing must be able to meet the two steps established by nexus, “(1) the taxpayer must establish a logical link between his or her status and the legislature statue attack and (2) the taxpayer must connect his or her statue with the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged (83).” Flast meet the first nexus requirement because he established a logical link to Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, in which Congress was to spend for the general welfare and that did not include giving money to religious schools for finance instruction and educational materials (89). Moreover, Flast meet the second nexus requirement because he alleged that the statute violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment (89). The reasoning being that by the government supporting one religion, it made that one religion superior which violates freedom of religion because it makes all other religions inferior. Therefore, Flast had standing and met the nexus requirements allowing him to sue.
John Adams, the previous Federalist president, lost the Election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican. Before Jefferson took office, Adams decided to appoint as many Federalists into the Supreme court as he could, including William Marbury, all of whom needed to be commissioned in order to be officially sworn in. However, Jefferson took office before the commissions could be handed out, and he ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to not deliver the commissions. Marbury proceeded to ask Marshall for a writ of mandamus (found in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act), forcing Madison to issue the commissions. This dispute between Marbury and Madison sparks the famous case. The dilemma here is the differences in interpretation. Some viewed Section 13 as unconstitutional, as it added power to the Judicial Branch, disrupting checks and balances. Others saw that “Marbury had been duly appointed…[and] the writ of mandamus [was] to be an appropriate legal remedy for resolving Marbury’s dilemma”(Clinton 86). Marshall wanted to issue the...
The power to tax is key to a successful government. If a government is to act it needs the means to do so. The Articles withheld the power of taxation from Congress and gave it to the local governments. Congress could only appeal to the states for money. Unsurprisingly, the states did not respond with any of the requested money. This was a serious problem because the U.S. was in an incredible amount of debt as a result of the Revolutionary War. If money cannot be collected, how are debts to be paid? Some in Congress believed the problem could be solved by printing more money. However, this strategy only led to inflation, which weakened the economy furthe...
Good Afternoon ladies, gentlemen and honorable judge Elliot. Today I am here to prove that Ms. Pearson is guilty of bullying and causing emotional distress to my client Alex Billings. Ms. Pearson and my client were both enrolled at King High School and met each other at freshman orientation. Upon attending this orientation a quick friendship had begun between Ms. Billings and Ms. Pearson. There at orientation they exchanged phone numbers and even MyFace account names. They were both assigned to the same English class together and even ate lunch together in the cafeteria. That weekend after school had started, Alex and Ms. Pearson met up at Go-Go’s. Ever since that weekend at Go-Go’s Ms. Pearson had constantly
Imagine living in a country where no citizen has a say in the government’s actions. Envision a nation where the ruler can tax people without permission and the common people are forced to obey without question. That was life in The Colonies before the year of 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was created. Great Britain passed laws whether it benefited the people or not. Before the Declaration of Independence was composed, a plethora of unnecessary taxes were approved. These taxes sent many colonists into debt. According to “The Declaration of Independence, 1776,” published on Office of the Historian, a famous tax called the Stamp Act was passed by Parliament. This tax forced colonists to purchase stamps for every paper product
...ll was politically motivated became obvious when the House voted to extend the act from its original one year proposed to the expiration of John Adams term, March 3, 1801. The victory of the Republicans, who ran on a platform of anti-sedition, in the election of 1800 showed that Americans were much more interested in personal freedom that what Federalist thought. It is understandable that in time of war some positions need to be taken to assure the countries well being; as seen in later wars when the Japanese were sent to camps in the west coast. But when these acts of concern start to eliminate certain right and freedoms or violate the constitution; they should be abolished. Thankfully, the American people have the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights to bring them back from the edge, and to force those positions in office governing for themselves into accountability.
Despite the downfall of the Federalist Party in the early nineteenth century, John Marshall continued to exert a strong Federalist influence on the government, which acted as a catalyst to ignite political controversy. In the McCullough vs. Maryland trial of 1819, Marshall deemed Maryland taxing the second bank of the United States as being unconstitutional, which gave even more power to the central government. (Doc D) Majority of the American population was against his ruling and refuted it because many people believed that having a strong central government was bad because if a bad decision was made, it would have affected the entire union, whereas if there was a strong state government, a bad decision would have just hurt the state. However, this was not the only time where the economy had failed in the early 1800’s. In 1816, John Randolph addressed congress and stated that it was unjust to tax the poo...
Special purpose entities, or SPE, were created by the chief financial officer Andy Fastow. The purpose of the partnerships with the newly established entities was the high debt of Enron and to record some profit on the sale of Enron assets to these companies. This kind of company needed to be independent from Enron. To establish independence and to comply with GAAP it had to meet two criteria. A. the existence of independent investor who controls at least 3 % of the entity assets. B. investors should act as the controlling shareholder and in making the entity business decisions. Chewco was one of those entities created by Fastow, they wanted it to be used to cover the loses of another entity called JEDI (which had a partnership with CALPERS). They needed this company so they didn’t have to report this loss on their balance sheet therefore they needed some independent investor to take over the 3% of the entity. The outside investors were aware of Enron business in this kind of entity so they wouldn’t participate in such entity. One Enron executive, Michael Kopper, informed Fastow that he is willing to take over the 3% needed to run the company. Kopper made a lot of profit off his new position and also managed to
As seen in Document C, Congress had so little money that it couldn’t afford to pay the army their bonuses. The army, of course, was discontented in this lack of action and thought they were being treated unjustly. The delay was so slow that the army did not think they were going to get paid. This, in itself, exhibits the great need for the national government to acquire the power to tax.
Throughout the Jacksonian era the Jacksonians proved to be violators of the United States Constitution and not the guardians they believed themselves to be. Both the Jacksonians and President Jackson went against the Supreme Courts regarding cases that were said to be constitutional. An instance in which the Jacksonian Democrats violated the Constitution was in the "Trail of Tears". The Supreme Court stated that the Jacksonian Democrats' actions were unconstitutional because they had issued the "Indian Removal Act". By doing this, they were in violation of the treaty of New Echota. In the 1832 decision Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Cherokees had their own land and that they did not need to follow Georgia law in their own territory. This ruling of the Supreme Court did not stop Jacksonians from driving the Cherokees off of their land. Jackson used the Constitution to benefit himself when he vetoed the national bank, even after the Supreme Court had already ruled that the bank was constitutional. When South Carolina declared a reduced tariff void and threatened to secede, President Jackson responded in an unconstitutionally. He threatened to send militia to enforce the tariff and the Jacksonian Congress passed a bill approving this military force, if necessary. This was in direct violation of the Constitution. They continued to violate the Constitution by placing censors on the mail and intercepting abolitionist literature or mail into or from the south. This was an infringement on the Constitution because it violated the first amendment.
...d by the court, there was no idea on how to create a standard, for the division between substantial and non-substantial commerce would be so small, they might as well be the same thing. When he talks about the court being proper, he talks about the decision to say that Filburn’s wheat growing activity had a substantial effect on commerce and that they agreed with congress’ judgement. But if congress were to be challenged on their decision on whether that was substantial enough to justify regulation, thus why the Wickard decision was so revolutionary, for even if congress was challenged on their decision, the courts would be in such a shamble on what to do. The case was such a new thing, for the court had the commerce power, and the court wouldn’t do anything against congress, because congress has the first and last say on whether or not what they say is commerce.
...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.
One person was convicted under the act for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice. ”2 This was never challenged by the Democratic-Republicans because of the Federalist-dominated the court rule. The act eventually ended the Federalists in 1800 an... ... middle of paper ... .... Or is it?
As we learn from the case study, the Lincoln Electric Company is the largest global manufacturer of machines for welding, which are used in all kinds of construction projects. This means that the company has a large global presence and many employees, so its culture affects thousands of its workers. Even though it is now 2014, the company still has a large market share and very satisfied employees, so clearly the culture leaves employees satisfied and motivates them to work hard for the company.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
Nowhere in The Constitution is this more evident than in Article 1, Section 9 which prevents direct taxation. This element allowed the Framers to protect their property interest and prevent the loss of wealth. This is noted by Wood “The national government was designed to make confiscation of wealth through taxation or currency inflation hard because of the effective veto of the Senate and presidency.”(Ch.2,