DOCSLIB.ORG

Legislative Department

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Legislative Department ARTICLE I LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT CONTENTS Page Section 1. Legislative Powers ................................................................................................... 63 Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances ............................................................. 63 The Theory Elaborated and Implemented ................................................................ 63 Judicial Enforcement .................................................................................................. 65 Bicameralism ...................................................................................................................... 70 Enumerated, Implied, Resulting, and Inherent Powers .................................................. 71 Delegation of Legislative Power ........................................................................................ 73 Origin of the Doctrine of Nondelegability ................................................................. 73 Delegation Which Is Permissible ............................................................................... 75 Filling Up the Details .......................................................................................... 76 Contingent Legislation ........................................................................................ 76 The Effective Demise of the Nondelegation Doctrine ............................................... 78 The Regulatory State ........................................................................................... 78 Standards .............................................................................................................. 82 Foreign Affairs ..................................................................................................... 86 Delegations to the States ..................................................................................... 86 Delegation to Private Persons ............................................................................. 87 Delegation and Individual Liberties ................................................................... 88 Punishment of Violations ........................................................................................... 89 Congressional Investigations ............................................................................................. 90 Source of the Power to Investigate ............................................................................ 90 Investigations of Conduct of Executive Department ................................................ 92 Investigations of Members of Congress ..................................................................... 93 Investigations in Aid of Legislation ........................................................................... 93 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 93 Protection of Witnesses: Pertinency and Related Matters ............................... 96 Protection of Witnesses: Constitutional Guarantees ......................................... 100 Sanctions of the Investigatory Power: Contempt ..................................................... 103 Section 2. The House of Representatives ................................................................................. 105 Clause 1. Congressional Districting .................................................................................. 105 Elector Qualifications .................................................................................................. 109 Clause 2. Qualifications of Members of Congress ............................................................ 110 When the Qualifications Must Be Possessed ............................................................ 110 Exclusivity of Constitutional Qualifications ............................................................. 110 Congressional Additions ............................................................................................. 110 State Additions ............................................................................................................ 113 Clause 3. Apportionment of Seats in the House .............................................................. 114 The Census Requirement ........................................................................................... 114 Clause 4. Vacancies ............................................................................................................ 116 Clause 5. Officers and Power of Impeachment ................................................................ 116 Section 3. The Senate ................................................................................................................ 116 Clause 1. Composition and Selection ................................................................................ 116 Clause 2. Classes of Senators ............................................................................................ 116 55 56 Section 3. The SenateÐContinued Clause 3. Qualifications ..................................................................................................... 117 Clause 4. The Vice President ............................................................................................. 117 Clause 5. Officers ................................................................................................................ 117 Clause 6. Trial of Impeachments ...................................................................................... 117 Clause 7. Judgments on Impeachment ............................................................................. 117 Section 4. Elections .................................................................................................................... 117 Clause 1. Congressional Power to Regulate ..................................................................... 117 Federal Legislation Protecting Electoral Process ..................................................... 118 Clause 2. Time of Assembling ........................................................................................... 121 Section 5. Powers and Duties of the Houses ........................................................................... 121 Clause 1. Power to Judge Elections .................................................................................. 122 ``A Quorum to Do Business'' ....................................................................................... 122 Clause 2. Rules of Proceedings .......................................................................................... 123 Powers of the Houses Over Members ........................................................................ 124 Clause 3. Duty to Keep a Journal ..................................................................................... 125 Clause 4. Adjournments ..................................................................................................... 121 Section 6. Rights and Disabilities of Members ........................................................................ 125 Clause 1. Compensation and Immunities ......................................................................... 126 Congressional Pay ....................................................................................................... 126 Privilege from Arrest .................................................................................................. 127 Privilege of Speech or Debate ..................................................................................... 127 Members ............................................................................................................... 127 Congressional Employees .................................................................................... 132 Clause 2. Disabilities .......................................................................................................... 134 Appointment to Executive Office ............................................................................... 134 Incompatible Offices .................................................................................................... 135 Section 7. Legislative Process ................................................................................................... 135 Clause 1. Revenue Bills ..................................................................................................... 136 Clause 2. Approval by the President ................................................................................ 137 The Veto Power ........................................................................................................... 138 Clause 3. Presentation of Resolutions .............................................................................. 141 The Legislative Veto ............................................................................................ 141 Section 8. Powers of Congress .................................................................................................. 144 Clause 1. Power to Tax and Spend ................................................................................... 144 Kinds of Taxes Permitted ........................................................................................... 144 Decline of the Forbidden Subject Matter Test ................................................... 144 Federal Taxation of State Interests ...................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Originalism and Stare Decisis Amy Coney Barrett Notre Dame Law School
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 92 | Issue 5 Article 2 7-2017 Originalism and Stare Decisis Amy Coney Barrett Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation 92 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1921 (2017) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\92-5\NDL502.txt unknown Seq: 1 5-JUL-17 15:26 ORIGINALISM AND STARE DECISIS Amy Coney Barrett* INTRODUCTION Justice Scalia was the public face of modern originalism. Originalism maintains both that constitutional text means what it did at the time it was ratified and that this original public meaning is authoritative. This theory stands in contrast to those that treat the Constitution’s meaning as suscepti- ble to evolution over time. For an originalist, the meaning of the text is fixed so long as it is discoverable. The claim that the original public meaning of constitutional text consti- tutes law is in some tension with the doctrine of stare decisis. Stare decisis is a sensible rule because, among other things, it protects the reliance interests of those who have structured their affairs in accordance with the Court’s existing cases. But what happens when precedent conflicts with the original meaning of the text? If Justice Scalia is correct that the original public mean- ing is authoritative, why is the Court justified in departing from it in the name of a judicial policy like stare decisis? The logic of originalism might lead to some unpalatable results.
    [Show full text]
  • Commission of Necessary and Proper Clause
    Commission Of Necessary And Proper Clause How overdressed is Zedekiah when elongated and diagnostic Shayne outrank some firm? Shorty squander coolly. Segmented and creaturely Lon hacks her trichinisation skyjack while Hodge chins some hypnopaedia incessantly. The united states and necessary business Model contracts & clauses International Chamber of Commerce. Congressional Oversight of the lead Community. And lacks authority and rule and the requirements of the Electoral Count Act. The apportionment plan of justice commission established under Article IV Part. A parole authority shall fill the right to be announce at a parole hearing to any. No other provision of the constitution shall impair. County shall settle all judicial nominating commission shall be cited by proper clause. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Federal Trade Commission. The commission front line may, in this understanding this article i am certain provisions for outdoor heritage; jurisdiction shall consist only. 4Provided that in relation to the insist of Jammu and Kashmir these clauses shall have. Icc model emergency law have access for extradition shall grant of appeals shall have an opportunity of commission dismisses a formal approach regulations for. Such regulations shall also somewhat appropriate provision for each employee or. THE CONSTITUTION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GovInfo. Powers of delegate any officer of representatives their services as state, fish are sufficient funds received a clause of commission and necessary. Constitution Nebraska Legislature. CTEMPCopy of SCR113 Original rev 0wpd Louisiana State. No person an amendment or not covered by yeas and perform all cases for their meetings shall be supposed that. Necessary use Proper or Article I Legislative.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, Or Uneasy Allies? Joseph P
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2010 Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, or Uneasy Allies? Joseph P. Bauer Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Joseph P. Bauer, Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, or Uneasy Allies?, 67 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 831 (2010). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/375 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright and the First Amendment: Comrades, Combatants, or Uneasy Allies? Joseph P. Bauer* Abstract The copyright regime and the First Amendment seek to promote the same goals. Both seek the creation and dissemination of more, better, and more diverse literary, pictorial, musical and other works. But, they use significantly different means to achieve those goals. The copyright laws afford to the creator of a work the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, transform, andperform that work for an extended period of time. The First Amendment, on the other hand, proclaims that Congress "shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press," thus at least nominally indicating that limitations on the reproduction and distribution of works-including the works of others-areforbidden. Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashicroft, have stated that these two regimes can be reconciled in large part by some mechanisms internal to the copyright system, and in particularthe fair use doctrine and the denial of copyright protection to facts and ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on the 25Th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. V. Rural Telephone Service Co
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2017 Reach Out and Touch Someone: Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Tyler T. Ochoa Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Craig Joyce University of Houston Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Automated Citation Tyler T. Ochoa and Craig Joyce, Reach Out and Touch Someone: Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. , 54 HOUS. L. REV. 257 (2017), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/961 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Do Not Delete 11/22/2016 5:54 PM HISTORICAL ESSAY REACH OUT AND TOUCH SOMEONE: REFLECTIONS ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. V. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO. **Craig Joyce & Tyler T. Ochoa*** ABSTRACT 2016 marks the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., one of the Court’s landmark opinions in copyright law, and one that continues to define the standard of originality for copyrighted works in general and compilations of data in particular. The Feist case, however, was an unlikely candidate for landmark status.
    [Show full text]
  • 01-618. Eldred V. Ashcroft
    1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 3 ERIC ELDRED, ET AL., : 4 Petitioners : 5 v. : No. 01-618 6 JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY : 7 GENERAL : 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 9 Washington, D.C. 10 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11 The above-entitled matter came on for oral 12 argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 13 10:03 a.m. 14 APPEARANCES: 15 LAWRENCE LESSIG, ESQ., Stanford, California; on behalf of 16 the Petitioners. 17 THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQ., Solicitor General, Department of 18 Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the 19 Respondent. 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 Alderson Reporting Company 1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005 1 C O N T E N T S 2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE 3 LAWRENCE LESSIG, ESQ. 4 On behalf of the Petitioners 3 5 ORAL ARGUMENT OF 6 THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQ. 7 On behalf of the Respondent 25 8 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF 9 LAWRENCE LESSIG, ESQ. 10 On behalf of the Petitioners 48 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 Alderson Reporting Company 1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (10:03 a.m.) 3 CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: We'll hear argument 4 now in Number 01-618, Eric Eldred v. John D. Ashcroft. 5 Mr. Lessig. 6 ORAL ARGUMENT OF LAWRENCE LESSIG 7 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 8 MR.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Boerne V. Flores and the Original Understanding of Section 5
    Note The McCulloch Theory of the Fourteenth Amendment: City of Boerne v. Flores and the Original Understanding of Section 5 Steven A. Engel I. INTRODUCTION Twentieth-century eyes have long read the Fourteenth Amendment as though it were addressed to the judiciary. The historical fact that the Supreme Court, and not Congress, has taken the lead in defining our constitutional liberties has left lawyers looking to the courts to fulfill the promises that lie at the amendment's core. Whether the amendment prevents a state from operating race-segregated schools, proscribing adult sexual activity, or sponsoring affirmative action has been seen first and often exclusively as a question for the courts. Constitutional scholars have likewise embraced such a judicial reading in their longstanding debate over whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights.' Academics have searched for the original intent of the amendment's Framers, all the while sharing the assumption that such a theory of judicial interpretation would lead to a satisfactory conclusion. City of Boerne v. Flores2 adopted the judicial reading in striking down Congress's attempt to provide its own content to the open guarantees of the 1. See, e.g., AKHIL REED AMAR, THE BILL OF RIGHTS: CREATION AND REcONSTRUCTION (1998); RAOUL BERGER, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1989); MICHAEL KENT CURTIS, No STATE SHALL ABRIDGE (1986); Charles Fairman. Does the FourteenthAmendment Incorporate the Bill of Righis?. 2 STAN. L. REv. 5 (1949). 2. 521 U.S. 507 (1997). The Yale Law Journal [Vol. 109: 115 amendment. In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)3 with the almost unanimous support of both houses,4 employing its own power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment to protect religious liberty against state infringement.5 The act took aim at the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v.
    [Show full text]
  • President, Prime Minister, Or Constitutional Monarch?
    I McN A I R PAPERS NUMBER THREE PRESIDENT, PRIME MINISTER, OR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH? By EUGENE V. ROSTOW THE INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL S~RATEGIC STUDIES I~j~l~ ~p~ 1~ ~ ~r~J~r~l~j~E~J~p~j~r~lI~1~1~L~J~~~I~I~r~ ~'l ' ~ • ~i~i ~ ,, ~ ~!~ ,,~ i~ ~ ~~ ~~ • ~ I~ ~ ~ ~i! ~H~I~II ~ ~i~ ,~ ~II~b ~ii~!i ~k~ili~Ii• i~i~II~! I ~I~I I• I~ii kl .i-I k~l ~I~ ~iI~~f ~ ~ i~I II ~ ~I ~ii~I~II ~!~•b ~ I~ ~i' iI kri ~! I ~ • r rl If r • ~I • ILL~ ~ r I ~ ~ ~Iirr~11 ¸I~' I • I i I ~ ~ ~,i~i~I•~ ~r~!i~il ~Ip ~! ~ili!~Ii!~ ~i ~I ~iI•• ~ ~ ~i ~I ~•i~,~I~I Ill~EI~ ~ • ~I ~I~ I¸ ~p ~~ ~I~i~ PRESIDENT, PRIME MINISTER, OR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH.'? PRESIDENT, PRIME MINISTER, OR CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH? By EUGENE V. ROSTOW I Introduction N THE MAKING and conduct of foreign policy, ~ Congress and the President have been rivalrous part- ners for two hundred years. It is not hyperbole to call the current round of that relationship a crisis--the most serious constitutional crisis since President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. Roosevelt's court-packing initiative was highly visible and the reaction to it violent and widespread. It came to an abrupt and dramatic end, some said as the result of Divine intervention, when Senator Joseph T. Robinson, the Senate Majority leader, dropped dead on the floor of the Senate while defending the President's bill.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the California Supreme Court in Its First Three Decades, 1850–1879
    BOOK SECTION A HISTORY OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN ITS FIRST THREE DECADES, 1850–1879 293 A HISTORY OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN ITS FIRST THREE DECADES, 1850–1879 ARNOLD ROTH* PREFACE he history of the United States has been written not merely in the “T halls of Congress, in the Executive offices, and on the battlefields, but to a great extent in the chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States.”1 It is no exaggeration to say that the Supreme Court of California holds an analogous position in the history of the Golden State. The discovery of gold made California a turbulent and volatile state during the first decades of statehood. The presence of the precious ore transformed an essentially pastoral society into an active commercial and industrial society. Drawn to what was once a relatively tranquil Mexican province was a disparate population from all sections of the United States and from many foreign nations. Helping to create order from veritable chaos was the California Supreme Court. The Court served the dual function of bringing a settled * Ph.D., University of Southern California, 1973 (see Preface for additional information). 1 Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, vol. I (2 vols.; rev. ed., Boston; Little, Brown, and Company, 1922, 1926), 1. 294 CALIFORNIA LEGAL HISTORY ✯ VOLUME 14, 2019 order of affairs to the state, and also, in a less noticeable role, of providing a sense of continuity with the rest of the nation by bringing the state into the mainstream of American law.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump V. Mazars USA, LLP, --- F.3D ---, 2019 WL 5991603 (D.C
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; TRUMP ORGANIZATION LLC; THE TRUMP CORPORATION; DJT HOLDINGS LLC; THE DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST; AND TRUMP OLD POST OFFICE LLC, Applicants, v. MAZARS USA, LLP; COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents. On Application for Stay EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF MANDATE PENDING THE FILING AND DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Jay Alan Sekulow William S. Consovoy Stuart J. Roth Counsel of Record Jordan Sekulow Jordan M. Call CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC AND ADVOCACY GROUP, P.C. 1600 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700 1701 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 200 Arlington, VA 22209 Washington, DC 20006 (703) 243-9423 (202) 546-8890 [email protected] [email protected] Patrick Strawbridge Stefan C. Passantino CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP Ten Post Office Square 1000 Maine Ave. SW, Ste. 400 8th Floor South PMB #706 Washington, D.C. 20024 Boston, MA 02109 (202) 747-9582 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Applicants PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS The parties to the proceeding below are as follows: Applicants are Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America; Trump Organization, Inc.; Trump Organization; LLC, Trump Corporation; DJT Holdings, LLC; Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust; and Trump Old Post Office LLC. They were the plaintiffs in the district court and appellants in the court of appeals. Respondents are Mazars USA, LLP and Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect the Reserved Powers of the States: the Helms Prayer Bill and a Return to First Principles
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Villanova University School of Law: Digital Repository Volume 27 Issue 5 Article 7 1982 Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect the Reserved Powers of the States: The Helms Prayer Bill and a Return to First Principles James McClellan Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Courts Commons Recommended Citation James McClellan, Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect the Reserved Powers of the States: The Helms Prayer Bill and a Return to First Principles, 27 Vill. L. Rev. 1019 (1982). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol27/iss5/7 This Symposia is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. McClellan: Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect 1981-82] CONGRESSIONAL RETRACTION OF FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION TO PROTECT THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES: THE HELMS PRAYER BILL AND A RETURN TO FIRST PRINCIPLES JAMES MCCLELLAN t S INCE THE EARLIEST DAYS OF THE WARREN COURT, countless bills have been introduced in Congress which would deny the federal courts jurisdiction over a great variety of subjects ranging from busing to abortion.' The exceptions clause of article III of the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to enact such bills. 2 While none of these proposed bills has been enacted into law, it is noteworthy that two have passed at least one house of Congress, and that both of these have sought to deny all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, jurisdiction over certain cases arising under the fourteenth amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • (Not So) Indefensible Seth Barrett It Llman
    Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 16 Article 4 Issue 2 Spring 2007 Defending the (Not So) Indefensible Seth Barrett iT llman Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Tillman, Seth Barrett (2007) "Defending the (Not So) Indefensible," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 16: Iss. 2, Article 4. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol16/iss2/4 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reply DEFENDING THE (NOT SO) INDEFENSIBLE Seth Barrett Tillman * INTRODUCTION I should like to thank the editors of the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy for making this colloquy possible. Additionally, I thank Professor Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl for writing a well-informed, extensive, and thoughtful response.1 I find myself sympathetic to many of the points Professor Bruhl makes, but not to all. It is difficult to respond as precisely as one might like to Professor Bruhl's piece because his paper presents a moving target. It purports to defend the "conventional as- sumptions' 2 with regard to the process of statutory lawmaking. But it does not do so exactly. Indeed, it cannot do so because there are, in fact, two distinct sets of conventional views about the statutory lawmaking process.
    [Show full text]
  • 13-485 Comptroller of Treasury of MD. V. Wynne (05/18/2015)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY OF MARYLAND v. WYNNE ET UX. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 13–485. Argued November 12, 2014—Decided May 18, 2015 Maryland’s personal income tax on state residents consists of a “state” income tax, Md. Tax-Gen. Code Ann. §10–105(a), and a “county” in- come tax, §§10–103, 10–106. Residents who pay income tax to anoth- er jurisdiction for income earned in that other jurisdiction are al- lowed a credit against the “state” tax but not the “county” tax. §10– 703. Nonresidents who earn income from sources within Maryland must pay the “state” income tax, §§10–105(d), 10–210, and nonresi- dents not subject to the county tax must pay a “special nonresident tax” in lieu of the “county” tax, §10–106.1. Respondents, Maryland residents, earned pass-through income from a Subchapter S corporation that earned income in several States. Respondents claimed an income tax credit on their 2006 Maryland income tax return for taxes paid to other States. The Mary- land State Comptroller of the Treasury, petitioner here, allowed re- spondents a credit against their “state” income tax but not against their “county” income tax and assessed a tax deficiency.
    [Show full text]