What does the United States Constitution say about governments power to tax quizlet?

Recommended textbook solutions

Century 21 Accounting: General Journal

11th EditionClaudia Bienias Gilbertson, Debra Gentene, Mark W Lehman

1,009 solutions

Principles of Economics

8th EditionN. Gregory Mankiw

1,335 solutions

Statistical Techniques in Business and Economics

15th EditionDouglas A. Lind, Samuel A. Wathen, William G. Marchal

1,236 solutions

Introductory Business Statistics

1st EditionAlexander Holmes, Barbara Illowsky, Susan Dean

2,174 solutions

1. Channels: Congress can validly regulate use of the "channels" of interstate commerce (e.g., highways and waterways) even though a particular activity may occur wholly intrastate.
2. Instrumentalities: Congress can regulate the instrumentalities used in interstate commerce, even though the regulation affects a solely intrastate activity (e.g., Congress could mandate that every truck used in interstate commerce have a specific safety device, even though a particular truck is used only intrastate). This category refers to people, machines, and other "things" used in carrying out commerce.
3. "Substantially Affecting" Commerce: The biggest category of activities that can be regulated contains those activities that have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce. The rule governing congressional regulation based on this category depends on whether the activity in question is commercial or non-commercial.
a. Activity is commercial: If the activity itself is arguably commercial, then the "cumulative effect" theory of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), applies; Congress can regulate an activity that as a class has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the activity, taken alone, would not.
b. Activity is non-commercial: Under U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), it now appears that if the activity is not commercial, then Congress can regulate only if there is a pretty obvious connection between the activity and interstate commerce. (Thus in Lopez, the relationship of guns in schools and commerce was found to be too weak a connection to satisfy this test. And in the later case of U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the relationship between violence against women and interstate commerce was also too weak—for instance, the fact that some women fail to travel interstate or to work for interstate businesses because they fear violence was found to be too weak a connection to interstate commerce to qualify.)
NOTE: It also now appears that the Supreme Court won't give much deference to the fact that Congress "believed" that the activity had the requisite "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

Although the Court has permitted regulation of wheat raised and consumed on the farm where it was raised as interstate commerce (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), in two recent cases, the Supreme Court has given significant weight to the fact that the activity Congress tried to regulate was not in itself a commercial activity. In U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (involving congressional attempts to combat violence near schools) and in U.S. v. Morrison (2000) (congressional efforts to combat violence against women), the fact that Congress was regulating what the majority found to be "non-economic activity" contributed to the Court's conclusion that the legislation exceeded the scope of the commerce power. So now, it seems that the Court will scrutinize the appropriateness of Congress' reliance on its commerce powers somewhat more closely than where the regulated activity is itself truly "commercial."
Nonetheless, in Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), the Court upheld Congress' criminalization of intrastate possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes, signaling that Congress may regulate non-commercial activity as part of its broader regulation of commercial activity where Congress reasonably believes that the failure to regulate the non-commercial activity would jeopardize the overall regulatory scheme. Thus, the trend of whether the Court is narrowing or expanding Congress' commerce power is not clear cut.

No. The power Congress is exercising here is its general welfare power—that is, Congress may tax and spend for the general welfare. Incident to its power to spend, Congress may attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds, as long as:
1. It does so unambiguously, allowing the states to exercise their choice knowingly (thus, the pressure cannot be so great as to be coercive);
2. The condition is related to a national concern; and
3. The condition is not independently barred by another constitutional provision—that is, the power may not be used to induce the states to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional.

Here there's no coercion, because only 5% of the state's highway funds are at risk; the concern here is safe interstate travel, which is a concern of general welfare. As to the third condition, a state drinking age of 21 wouldn't violate anyone's constitutional rights. Thus, the condition is valid. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
NOTE: The South Dakota case assumed the Twenty-First Amendment would bar a national minimum drinking age, but didn't decide the issue. Note that this means through its spending power Congress may indirectly accomplish things it couldn't do directly (e.g., establish a nationwide minimum drinking age).
NOTE: If Congress, through the conditional spending power, induced the states to pass laws that would themselves violate constitutional rights of individuals, those congressional actions would be unconstitutional.

Sets with similar terms

What are the constitutional limits on the power to tax quizlet?

What gives the U.S. government the power to collect taxes quizlet?

What gives the U.S. government the power to collect taxes Brainly?

What part of the federal government has the power to tax quizlet?