Student Post discussion for Hifsa

Session 2 Discussion - Access to Court - Taxpayer Type Suits

Access to Court - Taxpayer Type Suits

What factors should be considered when granting access to Court for taxpayer lawsuits?

· Should it be mere injury?

· Should there be a lower limit on the financial impact on the taxpayer?

· What level of congestion of the Courts should be acceptable?

· Consult page 30-31 and defend your answer.

Student 1 Post response

Granting access to court for taxpayer lawsuits is based on constitutional rights to protect against agencies abusive administrative actions. Also, access to court for taxpayers is associated from the concept of "standing," which is based on article III of the constitution, from the judicial power, granting citizens rights to sue administrators. Access to court is based on the type and nature  of injury. To bring a case against an administrative agency-that is, to have standing to sue an agency-the plaintiff must show that he or she has been, or will imminently be, injured by the agency in some concrete and particular way that can be addressed appropriately through a lawsuit. Merely being a taxpayer whose taxes increase, is insufficient to create standing, unless it challenges Congress's authority under its article I, section 8 taxes and spending power. Since millions of people will be affected, and therefore not particulized, a lower level of financial impact should be associated with tax bracket and taxable income. The level of congestion of the courts or theshold for access to court is based on these exclusion criteria: if the injury is too limited to create sufficient stake in the outcome of the suit, or the injury was not caused by the party being sued, or the requested relief will not remedy the injury. Finally the threshold of judiciary intervention or court access should include lawsuits that create reforms in schools, prisons, and mental hospitals

Re: Session 2 Discussion - Article 1 Authority for Legislation

Article 1 - Authority for Legislation Congress has engaged in a Bailout plan for the financial sector and for vehicle manufacturers. Congress has the power to tax and spend under section 8, but how does this Financial Bailout plan fit within that section since congress has only enumerated powers? Review the entire text of Article I for this exercise.

 

Student 2 Post response

Like everything else, there are limitations to the power congress has, article 1, section 8 of the United States constitution states has 18 clauses. However it meanly states "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." 

In recent history the best example of a bailout in my opinion would be the financial Crisis of 2008. Many financial experts say the bail was a failure and unnecessary going from a 700 billion dollar to trillion dollar mess. In the case of the bail out, clause 18 "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof " was applied. Making adjustments to the law which congress agreed to and implemented.

The decision heavily depended on the Supreme Court announcement of a four-part test for evaluating the constitutionality of conditions attached to federal spending programs: (1) the spending power must be exercised in pursuit of the general welfare, (2) grant conditions must be clearly stated, (3) the conditions must be related to a federal interest in the national program or project, and (4) the spending power cannot be used to induce states to do things that would themselves be unconstitutional.  The Court considered--perhaps unrealistically--the grant condition to be a financial "inducement" for South Dakota to enact a higher drinking age rather than financial "compulsion" to do so--suggesting the possibility of a different result if a higher percentage of funds had been withheld.  In dissent, Justice O'Connor argued that spending conditions should be found constitutional only if they related to how the federal grant dollars were to be spent."

References

Article I Section 8: Constitution Annotated: Congress.gov: Library of Congress. (n.d.).    Retrieved January 19, 2021, from https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/

Linder, D. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2021, fromhttp://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/spendingpower.html

Session 2 Discussion - Article II Duty of the President

Article II Duty of the President Section 3 is the real meat of this section. Given the fact that Congress is the law making apparatus, what is the duty of the President? Do you believe that there is latitude in his execution of the law? Compare and contrast your answer with the quote by President Roosevelt on p. 24. . . ."duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws."

Student 3 Post Response

U.S. Constitution clearly states that the job of the President is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. President Obama once wrote, “As President, I have often said that I have no greater responsibility than protecting the American people.” This is a situation where the Commander in Chief took some latitude in what the Constitution says. I’m sure he consulted with constitutional lawyers before making this statement which was leading to a new strategy on counterterrorism. 

I believe the President Obama example is along the same lines of latitude President Roosevelt was using to justify their policies.