Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
§5 of the 14th Amendment and The Taxing and Spending Clause
Transcript of §5 of the 14th Amendment and The Taxing and Spending Clause
It was not aimed at a state or state action
It was not remedial or corrective Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003) FMLA upheld under §5 because:
Record of unconstitutional participation in gender-based discrimination Tennessee v. Lane (2004) Title II upheld because of astrong record of discrimination supporting the conclusion that it was a "congruent and proportional" response. Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No One v. Holder (2009) Extension of Voting Rights Act upheld because it was voluntary. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976) §5 of the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to abrogate state 11th Amendment sovereign immunity "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996) State immuity from suit is more than a common law doctrine. It is a fundamental constitutional postulate. Alden v. Maine (1999) "The Federal Government retains its own immunity from suit not only in state tribunals but also in its own courts." Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000) Cannot use §5 of the 14th Amendment to abrogate states' immunity from suit when it is "so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventaive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior." Board of Trustees v. Garrett (2001) Congruent and proportional requirement applies to §5 abrogation powers Standard for evaluating whether Congressional exercise of authority under section 5 of the 14th amendment is appropriate: The purpose of §5 was to give broad powers to Congress to determine what legislation is appropriate to secure guarantees of the 14th Amendment
Katzenbach v. Morgan Must be aimed at state action
Civil Rights Cases, Morrison
Perhaps Harlan dissent in Civil Rights Cases? Must be "congruent and proportional to the harm it seeks to remedy" City of Boerne How do you know? Is it of a remedial nature?
Morrison Is there a history of discrimination?
Hibbs, Lane Incidental Impact?
Kimel Section 5 can abrogate state sovereign immunity Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer Congruent and proportional test also applies Garrett Article 1, §8, Clause 1:
"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Analysis South Dakota v. Dole (1987) Limitations on Congressional authority under the spending clause:
Must be in the pursuit of the general welfare
Condition must be unambiguous
Grants must be reasonably related to the Federal interest
Other constitutional provisions may be an independent bar