Congressional Power To Enforce The Reconstruction Amendments - Constitutional

13th Amendment

1. Section 1: no slavery or involuntary servitude (except to punish crime)

2. Section 2: Congress has power to enforce this article

14th Amendment

1. Section 1: due process clause, equal protection clause

2. Section 5: Congress has power to enforce this article

15th Amendment

1. Section 1: no race based infringement of rights

2. Section 2: Congress has power to enforce this article

Civil Rights Act of 1866: Congress overrod Johnson’s Veto

Civil Rights act of 1871 – Ku Klux Klan Act. Now exists as USC 1983.

Civil Rights Act of 1875 – gives full access to facilities/inns/public conveyances (using 14th amendment). Congress has the power to enforce the 14th amendment under SECTION 5.

Civil Rights Cases of 1883: Until a state law has been passed no law of the United States can be exercised when they are in contravention of state law governing individual conduct.

1. Held: Congress does not have the power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

   1. 14th & 15th amendment only empowers congress to regulate state actors

   2. 14th and 15th amendment specifically refer to the states

United States v. Morrison: Congress’ authority under section 5 of the 14th amendment to enact the civil remedy of Violence Against Women Act

1. Held: The civil remedy of VAWA exceeded Congress’s Section 5 authority because it involves the regulation of private conduct

   1. Limitations are necessary to prevent the 14th amendment from obliterating the framer’s carefully crafted balance of power between the States and National Government

   2. Commerce clause is UNIQUE because it allows congress to regulate private conduct. But VAWA triest to regulate individual conducted based on Sec. 5 of 14th, which is not valid.

   3. Congress can ONLY enforce the 14th amendment against state actors. 2 possible interpretations

      1. Congress has the power to enforce rights that the Supreme Court has found to exist – follow

      2. Congress can enforce rights that it finds to exist in the 14th amendment – lead.

2. Dissent: Breyer – applies statute to state’s failure to act. State inaction idea.

Katzenbach v. Morgan (1965) – NY voters seek declaratory judgment to prevent compliance with Voting Richts Act of 1965, which provded that no person who successfully completed the 6th grade in a school accredited by Puerto Rico, where language of instruction was other than English, shall be denied the right to vote because of an inability to read/write English. Ps argue this prevented enforcement of NY election law, which required ability to read/write in English.

1. Held: Congress has the power to enact Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act. This is consistent with section 5 of 14th amendment. Supremacy Clause prevented enforcement of NY English literacy requirement (NATIONALIST VIEW): Congress has the authority to offer its own interpretation of the 14th amendment so long as Congress is expanding, not restricting, rights; and as long as the law is “necessary and proper” for meeting Congress’s goals (court has a historically broad reading of “necessary”

   1. Lassiter v. Northampton County Bd. Of Elections (1959) – challenged constitutionality of literacy tests

      1. Held: state imposed literacy tests were constitutionally permissible as long as they were applied equally to all races.

   2. Reasoning: The Court adopts the broad interpretation of congressional authority – “it is enough that we perceive a basis upon which Congress might predicate a judgment that the application of New York’s literacy requirement constituted an invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause”

Employment Divison v. Smith (1989) – 2 native americans working as counselors for private drug rehabilitation organization ingested peyote as part of religious ceremony. Fired.

1. Held: Congress does not have the authority, under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)

   1. Individual’s religious beliefs do not excuse him from compliance with otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.

      1. Opening the floodgates

City of Boerne v. Flores (1996): San Antonio denies Archbishop permit to expand his church for zoning reasons. Church was located in...