| Line 27: |
Line 27: |
| | There is a third reason why the ''McCulloch v. Maryland'' decision is significant. The Court held that Congress has unenumerated powers that are not expressly given to it by the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to create a national bank given to the federal government. But under the '''"Elastic Clause"''' (also known as the '''"Necessary and Proper Clause"''') of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" other valid federal laws. This clause has been used repeatedly by Congress to make laws where it does not have an express grant of power by the Constitution to do so. | | There is a third reason why the ''McCulloch v. Maryland'' decision is significant. The Court held that Congress has unenumerated powers that are not expressly given to it by the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to create a national bank given to the federal government. But under the '''"Elastic Clause"''' (also known as the '''"Necessary and Proper Clause"''') of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" other valid federal laws. This clause has been used repeatedly by Congress to make laws where it does not have an express grant of power by the Constitution to do so. |
| | | | |
| − | The Supremacy Clause continues to invalidate state laws. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (which requires that courts generally enforce [[arbitration]] agreements) preempts state laws that had the effect of allowing the public to bypass arbitration agreements with [[class action]] lawsuits. ''AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion'', 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011). And in 2012, the Supreme Court prevented Arizona from enforcing its immigration enforcement bill Senate Bill ("SB") 1070, by holding that the federal government has taken over enforcement of immigration law, and therefore Arizona cannot enforce parts of its SB 1070. ''Arizona v. U.S.'', 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012). | + | The Supremacy Clause continues to invalidate State laws. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (which requires that courts generally enforce [[arbitration]] agreements) preempts State laws that had the effect of allowing the public to bypass arbitration agreements with [[class action]] lawsuits. ''AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion'', 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011). And in 2012, the Supreme Court prevented Arizona from enforcing its immigration enforcement bill Senate Bill ("SB") 1070, by holding that the federal government has taken over enforcement of immigration law, and therefore Arizona cannot enforce parts of its SB 1070. ''Arizona v. U.S.'', 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012). |
| | | | |
| | == "The Power to Tax" == | | == "The Power to Tax" == |
| Line 63: |
Line 63: |
| | == "One man, one vote" == | | == "One man, one vote" == |
| | | | |
| − | For 200 years, including prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, State legislatures have decided for themselves how they would carve their own legislative districts at the State level. All states (except Nebraska) have a "bicameral" legislature consisting of a house of representatives (call the "Assembly" in New Jersey), and a state senate. The internal division of those districts within a State had long been considered a matter for only the state legislature to decide, without any interference by the federal government. For example, should Newark be included in the same district as Morristown? Should senate districts be based on county lines, or on population? The U.S. Senate is not based on population, but on State boundaries. | + | For 200 years, including prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, State legislatures have decided for themselves how they would carve their own legislative districts at the State level. All States (except Nebraska) have a "bicameral" legislature consisting of a house of representatives (call the "Assembly" in New Jersey), and a State senate. The internal division of those districts within a State had long been considered a matter for only the State legislature to decide, without any interference by the federal government. For example, should Newark be included in the same district as Morristown? Should senate districts be based on county lines, or on population? The U.S. Senate is not based on population, but on State boundaries. |
| | | | |
| | In a decision having vast significance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that States must draw their districts to comply with a rule of "one man, one vote" (or "one person, one vote"). This means that districts must be drawn such that the population size of each district is nearly equal. This is called "one man, one vote" because it requires that the relative weight of each man's vote is the same no matter where he lives in the State. His vote cannot be crowded out by living in a district drawn to have a bigger population than other districts in the State. | | In a decision having vast significance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that States must draw their districts to comply with a rule of "one man, one vote" (or "one person, one vote"). This means that districts must be drawn such that the population size of each district is nearly equal. This is called "one man, one vote" because it requires that the relative weight of each man's vote is the same no matter where he lives in the State. His vote cannot be crowded out by living in a district drawn to have a bigger population than other districts in the State. |