PSCI 3322 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: William Rehnquist, Taxing And Spending Clause, Missouri Compromise

25 views3 pages

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

South Dakota V. Dole
The Federal Government was going to cut federal highway funding by 5% if the
states didn't change their minimum drinking age to 21.
South Dakota allowed for people 19 or older to purchase 3.2% beer
!They didn't want to change their law
!Argued that the federal government was coercing them to do something
Taxing and Spending powers allows an indirect regulation of drinking ages that
might not be allowed directly under the 21st Amendment
!21st Amendment repealed Prohibition
!Left the power to the states to decide on prohibition
• Could get rid of it, county option, or keep state-wide prohibition
Rehnquist argues that the government cannot coerce the states to act
!However, they can encourage a state to do something
!Since this is a small amount (only 5%), its encouragement not coercion
This is allowed under the spending clause. Has to fit these things:
!The spending must promote the general welfare"
• Encouraging traffic safety by trying to reduce young drunk driving
!The condition must be unambiguous
!The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national
projects or programs
!The condition imposed on the states must not be unconstitutional on its own
!The condition must not be coercion
Note that Rehnquist upholds this exercise of taxing and spending, but favorably
cites US V. Butler
O'Connor in dissent says Butler is a "crabbed" interpretation of Congress' regulatory power
under the clause that is "questionable" today
• Cooperative Federalism"
The federal government would use financial incentives to promote policy between the
federal government and state governments
Dred Scott V. Sandford
Southerners Northerns
Taney (Dem) Nelson (Dem)
Campbell (Dem) Grier (Dem)
Catron (Dem) Curtis (Whig)
Daniel (Dem) Mclean (multiparty)
Wayne (Dem)
Dr. Emerson traveled with Dred Scott in and out of free and slave states
After Emerson died, Scott was sold to Sandford who was going to have Scott sue
for freedom
He was given money to sue for his freedom
Sandford wanted an outcome to benefit the abolitionist movement
All the Democrats agreed that Scott wasn't a citizen
!This meant he didn't have any rights
!He should have sued for rights while in a free state
A major contributing factor to the Civil War
A major contributing factor of the ratification of the 13th and 14th amendments
This decision of the court was a disaster, ruined a lot of its reputation
!Looked a lot like a political opinion
Unlock document

This preview shows page 1 of the document.
Unlock all 3 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get access

$10 USD/m
Billed $120 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
40 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Homework Help
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
30 Verified Answers
Study Guides
1 Booster Class