Congressional Acts: Constitutional Violations?

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the US constitutional system of government. It is the highest court in the country and has the power of judicial review, which allows it to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. This power was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, where the Court held that an Act of Congress contrary to the Constitution could not stand. The Court has since held numerous Acts of Congress unconstitutional in whole or in part, including provisions of election law that violate the First Amendment and sections of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 that attempt to redefine constitutional protections. While the Supreme Court can review and invalidate Acts of Congress that violate the Constitution, it cannot force Congress to act or follow its own rules. There is no process to impeach and remove Congress as a whole, and the Constitution only requires Congress to assemble at least once a year. An Act of Congress refers to a statute enacted by the US Congress, which can become law through majority passage in both houses, presidential signature, or congressional override of a presidential veto.

Explore related products

America’s Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal Government’s Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights

$32.64

The Impeachment Power: The Law, Politics, and Purpose of an Extraordinary Constitutional Tool

$28.44 $29.95

TROOPS ON AMERICAN SOIL: How Donald Trump Deployed the National Guard to Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles, and Washington—and Sparked a Constitutional Crisis ... in U.S. Cities (True Case Files Book 1)

$7.99 $34.99

America's State Governments: A Critical Look at Disconnected Democracies

$52.99 $190

Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights, Claims and Entitlements (ASA Monographs)

$47.87 $62.99

Conflict Management and Resolution: An Introduction

$42.03 $61.99

The Supreme Court's role in upholding the Constitution

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, and it plays a crucial role in upholding the Constitution. The Court's power of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), allows it to declare acts of Congress or the Executive Branch unconstitutional. This power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but stems from the Court's interpretation of Article VI, which establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Secondly, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and determines when a Constitutional right has been violated. This role is especially important in applying the Bill of Rights to the states, which occurred after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1869. The Court has original jurisdiction in cases between two or more states, those involving ambassadors, and other specific scenarios outlined in Article III, Section 2, and the Judiciary Act of 1789. It also has appellate jurisdiction in almost all other cases involving constitutional or federal law, including those where the United States is a party or those involving treaties.

The Supreme Court's decisions have a significant impact on society, as they shape the understanding and application of Constitutional rights and principles. The Court's rulings can protect civil rights and liberties, ensure the separation of powers between different branches of government, and set limits on democratic majorities to prevent harm to minorities. For instance, in Califano v. Westcott (1979), the Court held that a provision of the Social Security Act violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by discriminating based on sex.

While the Supreme Court's role in upholding the Constitution is vital, it is essential to recognize that Congress also plays a role in shaping the Court. According to Article III of the Constitution, Congress has the power to organize the Supreme Court, including determining the number of seats. Over time, Congress has altered the number of seats on the Court, ranging from five to ten justices. Today, the Court consists of nine justices, including one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.

The Social Security Act and gender discrimination

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the US and acts as the court of last resort for those seeking justice. One of its most important roles is judicial review, which allows it to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution.

In 1979, the Supreme Court held in Califano v. Westcott that a provision of the Social Security Act violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Act extended benefits to families whose dependent children had been deprived of parental support due to the father's unemployment but did not provide benefits when the mother became unemployed. The Court found that this impermissibly classified on the basis of sex.

The Social Security Act has since been amended to include protections against gender discrimination. Section 508 of the Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in the Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant. This section also prohibits discrimination based on age, race, colour, national origin, disability, or religion.

Additionally, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which is enforced by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), prohibits discrimination "on the grounds prohibited under...Title IX" of the Education Amendments of 1972. In Bostock v. Clayton County, GA, the Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition on employment discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Following this decision, OCR announced that it would interpret and enforce Section 1557's prohibition on sex discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Higher Education Facilities Act and religious freedom

The US Constitution establishes the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court. The best-known power of the Supreme Court is its ability to declare an Act of Congress or an Executive act in violation of the Constitution. This power is known as judicial review and was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 removed restrictions against the religious use of facilities constructed with federal funds after 20 years. In Tilton v. Richardson (1971), the Supreme Court held that this provision of the Act violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the property would still be of considerable value after 20 years, and removing the restriction would constitute a substantial governmental contribution to religion.

The Supreme Court has addressed religious freedom in higher education in several other cases. For example, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), the Court upheld a public university's "all comers" policy, which required student groups to allow any student to participate, regardless of their beliefs. The Christian Legal Society argued that the policy violated its right to free association, but the Court found the restriction reasonable and viewpoint-neutral, serving a legitimate educational goal.

Another case is Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), where the Court ruled that an Oregon statute prohibiting the consumption of peyote, used in Native American religious ceremonies, did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The Court held that a religious conviction did not exempt practitioners from abiding by legitimate governmental restrictions.

Additionally, in Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind (1986), the Court upheld a state program that provided funds to a visually impaired student attending a Christian college. The Court disagreed with the state agency's denial of funding on the grounds of direct funding of religious education, finding that the program served a secular purpose and did not entangle church and state.

More recently, in Bostock v. Clayton County (2015), the Supreme Court held that Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination in employment includes discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. While the Court acknowledged concerns about religious employers violating their deeply held beliefs, it did not provide a protective framework, instead relying on existing exemptions and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for protections.

In conclusion, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 was found to violate the First Amendment's establishment clause by removing restrictions on the religious use of federally funded facilities. The Supreme Court has addressed religious freedom in higher education in several cases, balancing religious freedoms with other constitutional considerations, such as freedom of association, free exercise, and non-entanglement of church and state.

Explore related products

Anthropology Beyond Culture (Wenner-Gren International Symposium Series)

$49.39 $51.99

Boundaries of State, Boundaries of Rights: Human Rights, Private Actors, and Positive Obligations

$123.11 $130

Nelson Mandela: Peace Through Reconciliation (Peacemakers)

$41.79 $54.99

Transformative Law and Public Policy

$45.59 $56.99

SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM FEDERAL FIREARM DISABILITIES:: EXAMINING UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATF POLICIES RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT

$250

SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF FEDERAL FIREARM PRIVILEGES:: EXAMINING UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATF POLICIES RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT

$20.95

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and federal powers

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, often referred to as the Brady Act, is a landmark legislative enactment that was passed during the Clinton administration in 1993. The act mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States, with the intention of preventing persons with previous serious convictions from purchasing firearms. It also imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases until the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was implemented in 1998.

However, the interim provisions of the Brady Act that require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers have been found to be inconsistent with the Constitution's allocation of power between the federal and state governments. In the case of Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court held that "Congress may not compel states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program, and Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly". This ruling was based on the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, which establishes a separation of powers between the federal and state governments.

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review, established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), allows it to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution. This power is derived from Article III of the Constitution, which vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. While Congress has the power to organize the Supreme Court, as seen with the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court's role in interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that acts of Congress do not violate it is a crucial check on federal power.

The Brady Act, therefore, presents a complex interplay between federal powers and constitutional limitations. While the act was passed using the federal government's powers, specifically Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce, its implementation has been limited by the Constitution's allocation of powers between the federal and state governments. This tension between federal powers and constitutional rights highlights the dynamic nature of American governance and the crucial role of the Supreme Court in interpreting and upholding the Constitution.

Election law and free speech

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the US constitutional system of government. It acts as the court of last resort for those seeking justice and ensures that each branch of government recognizes its power limits. The Court also protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution.

In the context of election law and free speech, the Supreme Court has addressed the intersection of these two areas in several cases. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Court held that certain provisions of election law violated the First Amendment's speech guarantees. These provisions included restrictions on how much money candidates or their immediate family members could spend on their campaigns, limits on independent expenditures related to a particular candidate, and caps on expenditures by candidates for federal office. The Court found that these provisions infringed upon the constitutional right to free speech.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of free speech in the electoral process, including the spending of money to influence voters. In cases such as Burson v. Freeman (1992), the Court examined the constitutionality of restrictions on political speech near polling places. While upholding a Tennessee law that prohibited the display of campaign materials within 100 feet of a polling place, the Court emphasized that the restriction was a minor geographic limitation necessary to protect voters from intimidation and fraud.

The Court has also addressed the issue of voter petitions and the right to vote itself, acknowledging the First Amendment implications inherent in these acts. However, despite recognizing the fundamental nature of the right to vote, the Court has been criticized for not providing sufficient protection against burdens on this right. Commentators have proposed various doctrinal solutions, such as fully recognizing the right to vote as fundamental or locating it within the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Furthermore, the digital revolution has significantly impacted election campaigns and free speech. Political parties, especially smaller ones, can now reach larger audiences at a lower cost through internet platforms, blogs, video sharing, and social media. However, this openness has also led to concerns about the integrity of elections due to targeted political advertising, misinformation, and coordinated inauthentic behavior.

In summary, the Supreme Court has played a vital role in interpreting and safeguarding free speech rights in election law. While recognizing the importance of free speech in elections, the Court has also balanced this right with other considerations, such as protecting voters from intimidation and fraud. The ongoing evolution of election campaigns in the digital age presents new challenges and complexities for free speech and the integrity of the electoral process.

Frequently asked questions