Printz v. United States: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=521 U.S. 898 (1997) |date=1997 |subject=Constitutional Law |appealed_from= |case_treatment=No |overturned= |partially_...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=1997 | |date=1997 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|facts=[[Congress]] enacted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which attempted to force state executive actions. | |||
|issues=Whether certain interim provisions of the '''Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act''' (1993), <span style="background:yellow">commanding</span> state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks, violate the [[US Constitution]]. | |||
|facts=Congress enacted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which attempted to force state executive actions. | |||
|issues=Whether certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks, violate the Constitution. | |||
Whether the federal government can force participation of the States’ executive in the actual administration of a federal program. | Whether the federal government can force participation of the States’ executive in the actual administration of a federal program. | ||
|holding=The provision is unconstitutional. The Brady Act cannot compels state officers to enforce a federal statute. | |||
|holding=The provision is unconstitutional. | |||
|rule=Early laws establish that the Constitution was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions, insofar as those prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power, but not to impress the state executive into its service. | |rule=Early laws establish that the Constitution was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions, insofar as those prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power, but not to impress the state executive into its service. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 14: | ||
The Constitution explicitly provides that the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, not that they may pass responsibility to CLEOs. | The Constitution explicitly provides that the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, not that they may pass responsibility to CLEOs. | ||
|comments='''Dissent''': | |comments=Stevens '''Dissent''': | ||
The grant of authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers is surely adequate to support the temporary enlistment of local police officers in the process of identifying persons who should not be entrusted with the possession of handguns. | The grant of authority to make all laws which shall be [[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Necessary_and_Proper_Clause|necessary and proper]] for carrying into execution the foregoing powers is surely adequate to support the temporary enlistment of local police officers in the process of identifying persons who should not be entrusted with the possession of handguns. | ||
|case_text_links= | |||
| | *''[[New York v. United States]]'', Congress can't command state legislatures | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/printz-v-united-states | |||
|source_type=Video summary | |||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:41, July 14, 2023
| Printz v. United States | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 521 U.S. 898 (1997) |
| Date decided | 1997 |
Facts
Congress enacted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which attempted to force state executive actions.
Issues
Whether certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993), commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks, violate the US Constitution.
Whether the federal government can force participation of the States’ executive in the actual administration of a federal program.Holding
The provision is unconstitutional. The Brady Act cannot compels state officers to enforce a federal statute.
Rule
Early laws establish that the Constitution was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions, insofar as those prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power, but not to impress the state executive into its service.
Using the States as the instruments of federal governance is both ineffectual and provocative of federal-state conflict.
The Constitution explicitly provides that the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, not that they may pass responsibility to CLEOs.Comments
Stevens Dissent:
The grant of authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers is surely adequate to support the temporary enlistment of local police officers in the process of identifying persons who should not be entrusted with the possession of handguns.
- New York v. United States, Congress can't command state legislatures
