Eleanor Finch
The US Constitution has been invalidated in part by the Supreme Court and by state laws. The Supreme Court has invalidated provisions of the Constitution on the grounds of violating the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Fifteenth Amendment, and Article III. State laws that have been deemed unconstitutional include those that impair the obligation of contracts, impose invalid restraints on commerce, and interfere with interstate commerce. In addition, there are also grammatical and substantive errors in the text of the Constitution, which are attributed to mistakes made by members of Congress or their staff during the amendment process.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Social Security Act | Extending benefits to families whose dependent children have been deprived of parental support due to the unemployment of the father but not the mother |
| Social Security Act | Awarding survivor's benefits based on the earnings of a deceased wife to a widower only if he was receiving at least half of his support from her at the time of her death, whereas widows automatically receive benefits |
| Prohibition | |
| Slavery | |
| State laws | A North Carolina statute that levied a tax on the franchise and property of a railroad that had tax exemption |
| State laws | A New York law imposing a tax on every alien arriving from a foreign country |
| State laws | A Michigan law taxing non-residents soliciting the sale of foreign liquor to be shipped into the state |
| State laws | A Pennsylvania act that imposed a license tax on foreign corporation common carriers doing business in the state |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Social Security Act
The Social Security Act was a key element of President Roosevelt's New Deal programme, which aimed to address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly. The Act was designed to create a work-related, contributory system in which workers would pay taxes during their employment to provide for their future economic security.
However, the Social Security Act faced significant legal challenges, with lower courts beginning to overturn major parts of the New Deal programme as early as 1934. In 1936, the Supreme Court ruled that a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production was beyond the powers delegated to the federal government, posing a serious threat to the Social Security Act, which relied on the same broad power to levy taxes for general welfare.
The Supreme Court's 1937 rulings on the Social Security Act were highly anticipated, with the court's decision potentially impacting over 26 million issued social security numbers, $150 million in collected taxes, and a dozen paid benefit claims. The 1937 Supreme Court was politically divided, with four conservative justices voting against New Deal programmes and three liberal justices voting in favour.
One notable case related to the Social Security Act is Califano v. Westcott (1979), where a provision of the Act was held to impermissibly classify on the basis of sex and violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This provision 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.
Family Tree Branches: Tracing Your Ancestral Roots
You may want to see also
Supreme Court appeals
The Supreme Court of the United States has invalidated several elements of the Constitution over the years, either in whole or in part, based on appeals.
One notable example is the case of *Califano v. Westcott* in 1979, where the Supreme Court held that a provision of the Social Security Act violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The provision extended benefits to families whose dependent children had been deprived of parental support due to the father's unemployment but did not provide the same benefits when the mother became unemployed. This was deemed an impermissible classification based on sex.
Similarly, in *Califano v. Silbowitz* (1977), the Court affirmed that a Social Security provision entitling a husband to insurance benefits through his wife's earnings, with certain conditions, but not requiring the same showing of support for a wife to qualify for benefits through her husband, violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
In other cases, the Supreme Court has invalidated provisions related to voting rights and the appeals process. In *United States v. Reese* (1876), the Court held that provisions penalizing election officials for refusing to allow voting by qualified citizens and hindering individuals from voting were invalid under the Fifteenth Amendment. Additionally, in *Gordon v. United States* (1864), the Court found that a provision allowing appeals from the Court of Claims to the Supreme Court contravened the judicial finality intended by Article III of the Constitution.
State laws have also been subject to Supreme Court appeals and have been found unconstitutional. For instance, a North Carolina statute that imposed a tax on the franchise and property of a railroad company with a tax exemption in its charter was deemed to impair the obligation of contract. Similarly, a New York law imposing a tax on aliens arriving from foreign countries was held to be an invalid regulation of foreign commerce.
These examples demonstrate the Supreme Court's role in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution, ensuring that laws and provisions at both the federal and state levels adhere to the protections and principles enshrined in the Constitution.
The Constitution's Formula for US House Seats
You may want to see also
Voting rights
The original Constitution did not explicitly guarantee the right to vote for all citizens. Instead, it restricted voting rights to property-holding white men, and even after the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, the right to vote remained elusive for many. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, granted African American men the right to vote, but this was often undermined by literacy tests, poll taxes, and other discriminatory practices.
Southern states, in particular, employed tactics such as literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and selective enforcement of poll taxes to disenfranchise African Americans and poor whites. The "grandfather clause", for example, waived literacy requirements if one's grandfather was a qualified voter before 1866, served as a soldier, or was from a foreign country. As most African Americans had grandfathers who were slaves before 1866, they were effectively excluded from voting.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was a landmark piece of legislation that relied on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to give the federal government and individuals the tools to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. This Act provided strong protections for voting rights and gave the federal government a more active role in enforcing those rights.
However, despite these advancements, the right to vote has continued to be a contested issue. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 created new ways to register to vote, but issues such as voter ID laws and partisan gerrymandering have emerged as new barriers to voting rights. The Supreme Court's rulings in cases like Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Brnovich v. DNC (2021) have also weakened the VRA, making it more challenging for the government to prevent discriminatory voting practices.
While the federal government retains the power to protect voting rights, the absence of an explicit right to vote in the Constitution leaves voters vulnerable to restrictive regulations and disenfranchisement.
Shays' Rebellion: Constitution's Birthright
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Presidential pardons
The President of the United States has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the country, except in cases of impeachment. This power is considered \"plenary\" and is generally not restricted or modified by Congress or the judiciary. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to include the power to grant conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, and amnesties. A pardon is an executive order granting clemency for a conviction and may be granted at any time after the crime has been committed. The pardon power has its historical roots in early English law and has been recognized by the Supreme Court as quite broad.
While the President has the authority to grant pardons, there have been instances where the validity of certain pardons has been questioned or challenged. For example, in 1872, a provision making Presidential pardons inadmissible in evidence in the Court of Claims was held to interfere with judicial power and the pardoning power. In this case, United States v. Klein, the Supreme Court invalidated the provision that prohibited the use of pardons by the Court of Claims and required the dismissal of appeals by the Supreme Court in certain cases.
Another example of a challenged pardon involves President Gerald Ford's broad federal pardon of former President Richard Nixon in 1974 for any offenses committed during his presidency. This pardon, known as an "open pardon," came before any indictments were issued and the legal effect of such pardons has not been determined by the judiciary. More recently, in 2025, President Trump challenged the validity of some of President Joe Biden's pardons, claiming they were invalidated due to the use of an autopen, which was incorrect.
The President's pardon power is not without limitations. For instance, posthumous presidential pardons appear to be ceremonial and ineffective, as they were never delivered to the recipient. Additionally, a pardoned offense may still be considered in subsequent proceedings, and a pardon does not overturn a conviction but rather mitigates or sets aside the punishment.
Dominican Republic's Constitution Day: History, Culture, and Celebration
You may want to see also
State laws
While federal laws are considered superior to state laws and cannot be negated by the states, there are several instances of state laws being held unconstitutional. According to supporters of nullification, states can declare federal laws unconstitutional if they deem that the federal government has exceeded its powers. However, this view has been rejected by federal courts, which hold that states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
In some cases, state laws have been used to challenge the constitutionality of federal laws. For example, Wisconsin's Supreme Court held the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, but the U.S. Supreme Court later reinstated the conviction. While states can challenge federal laws, they cannot block federal authorities from enforcing them unless a court has ruled the law unconstitutional.
Water and Proteins: The Main Components of Blood Plasma
You may want to see also
