Home Constitutional Constraints State and Federal Constitutional Constraints

State and Federal Constitutional Constraints

Introduction:

The United States constitution is the supreme law of the land that lays the foundation for the federal and state legal systems. The constitution provides a framework of laws that guide the operations of the government, guarantee individual freedoms, and prevent a concentration of power in the hands of one institution. Both the federal and state governments operate within the legal constraints set by the constitution.

Federal Constitutional Constraints:

The United States Constitution lays out the legal constraints that restrict federal government actions in a bid to prevent the concentration of power and the violation of citizens’ rights. The Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government, including war-making, regulating commerce, and coining money. The Tenth Amendment reserves additional powers to the states and the people and limits federal overreach.

State Constitutional Constraints:

Each state has a constitution that provides legal constraints similar to those in the federal constitution. State constitutions outline the powers and limitations of state governments, and they also guarantee individual rights like freedom of speech, religion, and the press. These constitutions provide guidelines for the operation of state governments, including the election of officials, the structure, and the powers of the legislature.

Federal and State Constitutions Interplay:

The federal and state governments’ constitutional constraints often intersect, sometimes leading to conflicts during legal deliberations. When state and federal regulations contradict each other, litigants can challenge the legality of one or both standards. For instance, the Supreme Court in 1992 ruled that a state’s restrictions on abortion were unconstitutional because they violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Constitutional Amendments:

The US constitution allows for amendments to update its provisions, fill gaps, and cater to emerging issues that were not foreseen during the initial drafting. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights is ten amendments protecting individual liberties that became part of the Constitution in 1791. Since then, numerous other amendments have touched on various aspects of governance, including voting rights, presidential term limits, and the prohibition of slavery.

Conclusion:

The United States Constitution is the bedrock of democratic governance in the United States. It has set the standards for individual rights, government structure, and the rule of law. The interplay between the federal and state constitutions has yielded a complex legal system, continuously evolving to balance the power between the federal and state governments. The constitutional constraints have prevented an authoritarian rule and ensured that the US system of governance remains the guiding light of democratic societies.


Uniformity and Equal Protection Clauses: 

The Uniformity and Equal Protection Clause can be utilized in many constitutional arguments. For taxes, the clause ensures that no individual, or entity is singled out for excessive taxation based on discrimination. Conversely, it forbids excluding an individual, or entity, from being responsible for taxes, except in certain circumstances. There are those that are exempt from taxes, such as churches and non profit organizations. Uniformity of taxes ensures that each taxpayer shares the responsibility for the tax burden, since each taxpayer enjoys the public benefits that are paid for by taxes.

The Clause does not mean that each tax payer is responsible for the same amount, or percentage of taxes, it simply ensures that each individual is responsible for taxes. However, no taxpayer can be responsible for an unreasonable amount of taxes, based on discrimination or prejudice. Individuals and entity’s must all be responsible for the tax burden, regardless of factors that may set them apart from others. For example, a company that conducts business on a certain item, such as gold, can not be discriminated against because they do not sell silver. In other words, companies can not be responsible for a differing amount of taxes based on what type of commerce is pleasing to the citizens or government within a jurisdiction.

Implications of Due Process on Tax Law:

Citizens are entitled to challenge any tax that they believe is unfair, in violation of the constitution, or a tax that they believe that they are not responsible for. For example, a citizen is entitled to protest a tax assessment on personal property.  Citizens are entitled to due process, which includes a speedy trial on issues before the court. Due process allows citizens to challenge the state, or federal government when they feel that they are being treated unfairly.

Frequently, the decisions in such cases are sited as case law. That way, the courts can sometimes prevent many cases of the same nature, from clogging up the courts. For instance, it is not necessary for many plaintiffs to challenge the same state tax. Only one case is necessary in order for the courts to grant a decision. However, citizens that do not agree with the decision, can challenge that decision or seek to appeal that decision. In addition, plaintiffs can appeal a higher court in order to have that court make a decision. Higher courts can decided whether or not to hear that case. Often, the case will be heard if the decision by a lower court was controversial or against government policy.

Commerce Clause: 

The Commerce Clause allows congressional control over issues of commerce. In addition, the each state is granted control over specific issues that related to commerce. Congress has the power to make decisions about commerce between states, Indian Tribes and foreign Nations. The scope of that control has often been challenged in courts. Decisions made by the courts have upheld Congressional control over issues of commerce, including taxation. However, the states have been granted some individual control over some issues of commerce, including taxation of companies that do business in their state.

Conversely, the courts have determined that states do not have the power to prevent companies from doing business in their state, or to prevent a company form doing business in another state. For example, a NJ ban on truck drivers using local roadways when they were not conducting business in NJ, was overturned. The ban would prohibit truck drivers from taking the speediest route, which prevented them from conducting business in the most effective manner. Neither congress, or any state government, may make determinations that can adversely effect a business or the Nation as a whole.