Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Editing Constitutional Law Maggs/4th ed. Outline II
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
Constitutional protections do not stop at nuclear families and regulations that intrude on choices concerning family living arrangements warrant heightened review. There is a right to chose your family. | Constitutional protections do not stop at nuclear families and regulations that intrude on choices concerning family living arrangements warrant heightened review. There is a right to chose your family. | ||
===== | =====Troxel v. Granville Right to bring up children===== | ||
Parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. | Parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. | ||
=====Michael H. v. Gerald D. Right to claim children===== | =====Michael H. v. Gerald D. Right to claim children===== | ||
Line 438: | Line 437: | ||
A regulation that bans the advertising of liquor prices. The government says their interest is to reduce the consumption of alcohol for health and safety. However, this regulation is not directly related to the interest. This is a ban on truthful, non-misleading commercial messages and that rarely protects consumers from arm. Also, this is not a restraint that is limited to furthering the interest. | A regulation that bans the advertising of liquor prices. The government says their interest is to reduce the consumption of alcohol for health and safety. However, this regulation is not directly related to the interest. This is a ban on truthful, non-misleading commercial messages and that rarely protects consumers from arm. Also, this is not a restraint that is limited to furthering the interest. | ||
=====Campaign Contributions: | =====Campaign Contributions: Buckley v. Valeo (1976)===== | ||
When you give money to a political candidate you are always communicating a message.The regulation is that individuals cannot contribute more than $25,000 to campaigns in a year. You cannot do this, it is a limit on speech. A regulation that individuals cannot contribute more than $1,000 to anything relative to clearly identified candidate also is not okay.The rules are… | When you give money to a political candidate you are always communicating a message.The regulation is that individuals cannot contribute more than $25,000 to campaigns in a year. You cannot do this, it is a limit on speech. A regulation that individuals cannot contribute more than $1,000 to anything relative to clearly identified candidate also is not okay.The rules are… | ||
*(1) Congress can limit the amount individual humans can contribute to any political candidate. | *(1) Congress can limit the amount individual humans can contribute to any political candidate. | ||
*(2) Congress cannot limit the amount individual humans can contribute to advocacy on behalf of any political candidate or issue. (PACs) | *(2) Congress cannot limit the amount individual humans can contribute to advocacy on behalf of any political candidate or issue. (PACs) | ||
Corporations are added to these rules by Citizens United. | Corporations are added to these rules by Citizens United. | ||
=====McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)===== | =====McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)===== | ||
A law restricting hw much money a donor can contribute in total to all political candidates or committees is unconstitutional under the first amendment. The first amendment protects participation in the democratic process. A law seting an aggregate cap on donations to individual candidates and committees is not sufficiently related to avoiding corruption. | A law restricting hw much money a donor can contribute in total to all political candidates or committees is unconstitutional under the first amendment. The first amendment protects participation in the democratic process. A law seting an aggregate cap on donations to individual candidates and committees is not sufficiently related to avoiding corruption. | ||
Line 593: | Line 591: | ||
===1. Physical Taking=== | ===1. Physical Taking=== | ||
The government comes to you and takes your property to build a road. It doesn’t matter how big or small it is, you still get compensation.It is a taking if the government requires cables to be installed in an apartment building. | The government comes to you and takes your property to build a road. It doesn’t matter how big or small it is, you still get compensation.It is a taking if the government requires cables to be installed in an apartment building. | ||
==== | ====LORETTO V. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP., Supreme Court of theUnited States (1982)==== | ||
Teleprompter Manhattan CATV, would obtain permission from property owners to run cable through their premises. In exchange, for this permission the Respondent would pay the owners 5% of the gross revenue recognized from the installation of cable in the apartment buildings. In 1973, the New York legislature passed an act stipulating that a landlord “could not interfere with the installation of cable television facilities upon his property.” (Industry Friendly Statute) '''''Issue #1.''''' Does a minor, but permanent physical occupation of property under the authorization of the government constitute a “taking”? ℙ''''':''''' This installation is a trespass. [Class Action inverse Condemnation, need compensation] | Teleprompter Manhattan CATV, would obtain permission from property owners to run cable through their premises. In exchange, for this permission the Respondent would pay the owners 5% of the gross revenue recognized from the installation of cable in the apartment buildings. In 1973, the New York legislature passed an act stipulating that a landlord “could not interfere with the installation of cable television facilities upon his property.” (Industry Friendly Statute) '''''Issue #1.''''' Does a minor, but permanent physical occupation of property under the authorization of the government constitute a “taking”? ℙ''''':''''' This installation is a trespass. [Class Action inverse Condemnation, need compensation] | ||
'''''BRIGHT LINE RULE #1:''''' A PERMANENT PHYSICAL OCCUPATION AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS A TAKING. PERIOD. | '''''BRIGHT LINE RULE #1:''''' A PERMANENT PHYSICAL OCCUPATION AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS A TAKING. PERIOD. |