Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Homework answers / question archive / Chapter 6 The Constitution What is unique about the U
What is unique about the U.S. Constitution? How does the U.S. Constitution "map" the unique structure of the Federal government?
What do we mean when we refer to the "Division of Powers" or the "Separation of Powers"?
The U.S. Constitution both defines and "maps" the structure, function and powers granted and reserved by the Federal government.
The U.S. Constitution is supreme over all laws and federal law takes precedence over a conflicting state or local law.
The separate branches of government [executive, legislative and judicial] are separate and co-equal.
The Federal government is granted the power to regulate foreign commerce and interstate commerce.
While the original seven constitutional articles define and describe the structure and powers of the U.S. government, the later amendments addressed concerns regarding the limits of those powers.
Some highlights:
1st Amendment: religion and speech protections
2nd Amendment: the right to possess guns
4th Amendment: the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
5th Amendment: takings and eminent domain, right against self incrimination
6th Amendment: the right to jury trial, counsel
13th Amendment: anti-slavery
14th Amendment: due process of law and equal protection
Chapter 6 - Constitutional Law
Brief Snyder v. Phelps 131 S.Ct. 1207 (2011)
As you read Snyder v. Phelps consider the following:
- What court decided this case?
- Who is writing this decision?
- What is the source for the rule(s) of law relied upon by the writer? What section(s) of the law are the focus of this decision?
- What is the larger meaning of this decision and how might this decision positively or negatively impact the society at large?
Complete all weekly Discussions assignments.
Post to Discussion Board one (1) webliography assignment from Chapter 6
|
|
Case Briefing and Legal Study Tips appeal? 6. What rules of law and reasoning does the appel- |
712 Appendix I
terms. You can find the terms in the glossary of this textbook, but to make it easier, we will define several new terms for you:
appellant The losing party at the district court level. appellee The prevailing party in the district court who is responding to the appellant. appeal To ask a higher court to decide whether an inferior court (e.g., trial court) made a legal mis- take in its decision; also to ask a higher court to review (decide) the case.
dissent To disagree with both the result and the legal reasoning of the majority opinion. opinion The court’s decision in a case. petitioner The losing party in the court of appeals who asks (i.e., “petitions”) the Supreme Court to decide whether the lower court made a mistake. respondent The prevailing party in the court of appeals who is responding to the petitioner. reversed What an appeals court says when it dis- agrees with the court beneath it. If it agrees with the lower court, it says “affirmed.”
CASE BRIEF
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebel- ius, 567 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) How do i read this citation?
· “National Federation of Independent Business” refers to the petitioner.
· “v” means versus or against.
· “Sebelius” refers to the respondent.
· 567 is the volume number of the official U.S.
Supreme Court Reporter, and __ refers to the page number where the case begins (once it is assigned a page number). The date, 2012, is the year when the case was decided.
Facts Twenty-six states, several individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business (plaintiffs) brought this action against the federal Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor departments and their Secretaries (defendants), in fed- eral district court, challenging the constitutionality of two aspects of the Affordable Care Act: the individual mandate and the expansion to Medicaid.
Procedural History This case was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claim that the
Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutional. Because the court concluded that the individual mandate provision exceeded congressional authority and was not severable, it declared the entire Affordable Care Act invalid.
On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, the circuit judges agreed that the individual mandate was uncon- stitutional, affirmed as to the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion, but reversed the determination about severability.
The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issues Appealed The key issues on appeal were:
1. Whether the individual mandate, imposing a min- imum essential coverage requirement, is within Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
2. Whether the provision giving the federal govern- ment the authority to penalize states that chose not to participate in the expansion of the Medic- aid program exceeded Congress’s power under the Spending Clause.
Who Wins and Why?
1. Although the Supreme Court found that the indi- vidual mandate exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, it was upheld as a “tax” pursuant to Congress’s taxing powers.
2. The statutory provision giving the federal govern- ment the authority to penalize states that chose not to participate in the expansion of Medicaid exceeded Congress’s authority under the Spending Clause.
What Does This Mean? Overall, this case was seen as a victory for the proponents of the Affordable Care Act. The individual mandate requir- ing nonexempt individuals to purchase and maintain minimum essential health care coverage was upheld. Although the Supreme Court found that the statutory provision giving the federal government the authority to penalize states that chose not to participate in the expansion of the Medicaid program exceeded Con- gress’s authority, it also held that this penalization provision was severable. As such, only the provision is unenforceable. In all other respects, the Afford- able Care Act was left intact. Although the law and its implementation continue to face challenges, health care exchanges opened in the fall of 2013 to facilitate the purchase of health insurance in every state.