Due Process, Jurisdiction over Corporations, and the Commerce Clause

1929 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 1062
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Commerce Clause

Constitutional Law in 1918–1919. II: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1918

1920 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-73
Author(s):  
Thomas Reed Powell
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
The State ◽  
Personal Property ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Decisions ◽  
Extra State ◽  
Foreign Corporation

Several of the cases already considered under the commerce clause involved further questions under the Fourteenth Amendment. Georgia's misuse of the mileage ratio in applying the unit rule to the taxation of wandering cars was found so arbitrary as to violate the requirement of due process. The minority insisted that “the case presents no question of taxing a foreign corporation with respect to personal property that never has come within the borders of the state.” This was not specifically denied by the majority who seem to base their decision on excessive valuation of property within the jurisdiction rather than on taxation of property outside the jurisdiction. Yet in substance the case is one of taxing extra-state values though not extra-state tangible objects.Missouri's excessive fee for certificates authorizing the issue of bonds secured by railroad property within the state, which was held an unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce, was alleged by complainant to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment as well. The opinion of the court did not pass on the due-process question, but the cases cited under the commerce clause relied also on the Fourteenth Amendment.

No Healthcare Penalty? No Problem: No Due Process

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 516-536
Author(s):  
Steven J. Willis ◽  
Nakku Chung
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
List Type ◽  
Type Number ◽  
Section 8 ◽  
Patient Protection ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
The People ◽  
Tenth Amendment ◽  
Direct Tax ◽  
The U.S

The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (“Act”), which mandates all individuals to have health insurance and “penalizes” those who do not, is unconstitutional for five well-documented and well-argued reasons:1.The mandate for individuals to purchase healthcare (“Mandate”) exceeds Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states under the Commerce Clause of article I, section 8, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.2.The penalty imposed on individuals who fail to honor the Mandate (“Penalty”) is an unconstitutional direct tax because it is unapportioned, as required by article I, section 1, clause 3, and by article 1, section 9, clause 4.3.The Penalty does not satisfy the Necessary and Proper Clause of article I, section 8, clause 18.4.The Act violates the Tenth Amendment reservation of unenumerated powers to the states and to the people.5.The mechanical, procedural aspects of the Penalty violate the due process guarantee in the Fifth Amendment.

Constitutional Law in 1909-1910: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1909

1910 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-497
Author(s):  
Eugene Wambaugh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Successful Attempt ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
State Statutes ◽  
The Supreme Court

It is indeed a substantial grist that the Supreme Court of the United States at the last term of court has ground for students of political science. The first opinion was delivered on November 1, 1909, and the last on May 31, 1910, and the court decided no less than sixty-five constitutional cases. Notice that with caution it is merely said that the court decided no less than that number; for it is often somewhat a matter of opinion whether a case should be classed as constitutional, and it may well be that there are readers who will find that the court exceeded sixty-five. And how were those sixty-five divided? Many turned on more constitutional points than one, and thus an enumeration of the cases bearing on the several clauses of the Constitution will reveal a total exceeding sixty-five. The enumeration, subject to amendment in accordance with each student's views, gives the following results: The Fourteenth Amendment, twenty-four cases; the Commerce Clause, twenty-one; the Obligation of Contracts Clause, eight; whether cases arise “under the laws of the United States,” eight; Full Faith and Credit Clause, five; and sixteen other clauses, from one to four cases each, aggregating twenty-seven.Through these dull figures some important facts shine distinctly. The Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause clearly took a vast part of the court's energy, and each of these provisions has to do with the curtailment of functions which prima facie belong to the several states. In other words, the chief feature of this term, as of every recent term, has been a more or less successful attempt of litigants to overthrow state statutes as denials of due process and equal protection or as interferences with interstate commerce.

scholarly journals Pub. L. No. 86-272 and the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Is This Anachronism Constitutionally Vulnerable After Murphy v. NCAA?

2020 ◽  
pp. 201
Author(s):  
Matthew Melone
Keyword(s):  
South Dakota ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
State Action ◽  
Personal Property ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
Sports Gambling ◽  
Physical Presence

State taxing authority suffers from little of the structural impediments that the Constitution imposes on the federal government’s taxing power but the states’ power to tax is subject to the restrictions imposed on the exercise of any state action by the Constitution. The most significant obstacles to the states’ assertion of their taxing authority have been the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause. The Due Process Clause concerns itself with fairness while the Commerce Clause concerns itself with a functioning national economy. Although the two restrictions have different objectives, for quite some time both restrictions shared one attribute—a taxpayer physical presence test. Business practices evolved in response to technological developments and the ability of enterprises to avail themselves of a forum state’s markets with little or no traditional physical presence in the state resulted in the elimination of the physical presence test for Due Process purposes almost thirty years ago. The subsequent exponential growth of electronic commerce finally led to the demise of the physical presence test for Commerce Clause purposes as a result of the Court’s recent decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair. However, a six decades old statute remains an impediment to the states’ ability to exercise income tax jurisdiction over the income earned by remote sellers of tangible personal property. In a case unrelated to state taxing authority during the same term, the Court in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association struck down a federal law that prohibited states from authorizing sports gambling. According to the Court, the federal law impermissibly commandeered state legislatures. A critical holding in that case was that a federal law that prohibits state action is subject to the anti-commandeering doctrine similar to federal laws that mandate state action. The federal statute that limits the states’ ability to tax is very similar to the gambling statute that the Court struck down—it prohibits states from enacting otherwise permissible legislation without establishing a corresponding federal regulatory regime. In short, the statute commandeers the states similarly to the gambling statute. As a result, the statute is an impermissible encroachment of state sovereignty. Part I of this Article discusses the Due Process and Commerce Clause limitations on states’ taxing powers and the eventual demise of the physical presence test as a result of Court’s holdings in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and, more recently, South Dakota v. Wayfair. This part also discusses Pub. L. No. 86-272, the longstanding prohibition imposed on states with regard to the taxation of income derived by remote sellers of tangible personal property. Part II discusses the anti-commandeering doctrine. This doctrine has surfaced as a significant bulwark for federalism over the past three decades and led to the demise of the federal sports gambling legislation as a result of the Court’s recent decision in Murphy. This part concludes with an analysis of the case and its potential application to the tax statute.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document