Printz v. 521 US 898 (1997), is the case of the United States Supreme Court where the Court ruled that certain provisional provisions of the Brady Act Pest Prevention violate the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Video Printz v. United States
​​Latar Belakang
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), Pub. L 90-618 and subsequent amendments establish a detailed Federal program governing the distribution of firearms. The GCA prohibits the possession of firearms by certain groups that are perceived as threats to public security: convicted, convicted crime in the household or spying on offenders, persons with extraordinary criminal warrants, fugitives from courts, unlawful aliens, prosecuted in court of protection orders issued against them, persons who inadvertently committed to mental health facilities, were convicted of mental illness by the courts, and others.
Persons who are disqualified from possession of firearms for mental health reasons may apply for this disability to be removed. Countries that do not retain the application process to allow people to be disqualified for mental health reasons to get help from a firearm ban against Justice aid. Section 105 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA), cited as Pub. L. 110-180, Ã,§ 105, provides for the restoration of the right of firearms in cases of mental health. Under the NIAA it is up to each US country to come up with its own application process; so the procedure for regaining rights varies from country to country.
Brady's Law
On November 30, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the Violence Prevention Law Law Brady Handgun, Pub. L. 103-159, 1968 amendment of the Gun Control Act. This "Brady Bill" requires the US Attorney General to make an electronic or telephone-based background checks to prevent the sale of firearms to people who have been banned from firearms. This examination, entitled National Instant Criminal Background Inspection System (NICS), came into effect as required on November 30, 1998.
Temporary provisions
The law also immediately puts certain temporary provisions until the system becomes operative. Under the provisional provisions, the firearms dealer proposing to transfer the gun shall receive from the transferee statement (Brady Form), containing the name, address and proposed transfer date together with the sworn statement that the transferee is not among the forbidden buyer classes, recipient by examining identification documents, and providing "principal law enforcement officer" (CLEO) from the recipient's residence with notice of the contents (and copies) of the Brady Form.
When CLEO receives the necessary notice of the proposed transfer, they must "make reasonable efforts to ensure within 5 business days whether the receipt or ownership would be unlawful, including any research in the State and any local recording system available and in a national system appointed by the Attorney General. "
Plaintiff
Petitioners Sheriff Jay Printz and Richard Mack, Law Enforcement Law Enforcement Chief for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, represented by Stephen Halbrook and David T. Hardy respectively, filed separate acts challenging the constitutionality of provisions while the Brady Act. They object to the use of congressional action to force state officials to execute Federal law.
Lower court decision
On May 16, 1994, US District Judge Charles C. Lovell gave the decision of the Sheriff's declaration, finding that the provision requiring CLEO to conduct a background check violates the United States's Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, but also concluded that the provision could be separated from the others. of the Act, effectively abandoning the system of voluntary background checks in place. On June 29, 1994, US District Judge John Roll reached the same conclusion. The ruling was reversed on September 8, 1995, by the US Court of Appeals for Judge Nine Judge William C. Canby Jr., who joined Judge Herbert Choy, on the dissent of Judge Ferdinand Francis Fernandez.
The Second Circuit also rejected the sheriff's challenge to the mandate, but the Fifth Circuit found that the mandate was unconstitutional, creating a split circuit.
Maps Printz v. United States
Supreme Court
The Sheriff's Montana and Arizona petitions for a certiorari statement were given and an hour of oral argument was heard on December 3, 1996, in which Hallbrook appeared for the sheriff and Walter E. Dellinger III, acting as United States General Attorney. , appeared for the Government.
Court Opinion
On June 27, 1997, the last day of the term of office, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Antonin Scalia, who joined Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist with Judge Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas found that the Brady Act's attempts to attack the sheriff for a background check violated the United States' Tenth Amendment Constitution. In his view of the Court, Judge Scalia stated that, although no constitutional text correctly responds to the challenge, the answer can be found "in historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court."
Understanding and historical practices
The establishment of the Acts of Congress imposing obligations on state judges is not evidence of federal power over state officials because, according to the Court, the Madisonian Compromise has agreed to abandon the creation of an optionally lower federal court. The Court rejected the Government's argument that Federalist No. 36, Federalist No. 45, and Federalist No. 27 anticipates that Congress will "exploit" state officials. Instead, the Court saw "nearly two centuries of clear congressional evasion from practice" as strong evidence that members of Congress do not think they have the power to govern state officials.
Constitutional Structure
The court explained that federalism in the United States was based on "double sovereignty", citing Federalist No. 10 guarantees. 39 that the state maintains "the remaining sovereignty and can not be contested". The Court stated that Framers drafted the Constitution to allow the Federal arrangement of international and interstate affairs, not the internal affairs provided to the State Legislatures.
The court expressed concern that Congressmen may take credit for "resolving" issues with policies that impose all financial and administrative burdens, as well as blame, on local officials. The court quoted Federalist's no. 51 that by giving the constituents control over a dual sovereign government "dual security arises on the rights of the people, different governments will control each other, at the same time each will be controlled by itself." The court concluded that allowing the Federal government to design police from 50 states into its services would increase its power far beyond what the Constitution intended.
The court identified additional structural problems by seizing the sheriff: it violated the separation of the constitution of power by robbing the President of the United States from its power to execute the law; contrary to "unified executive theory". The court explained
- So far we have discussed the effect that federal control over state officials will have the first element of "dual security" touched upon by Madison: the sharing of power between the State and Federal Government. It will also affect the second element: the separation and equilibrium of power between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution leaves no speculation as to who should administer the laws passed by Congress; President, he said, "Must be careful that the Law is done faithfully," Art. II, Ã, §3, personally and through his appointed officers (unless low-ranking officers such as Congress may permit to be appointed by "Judicial Courts" or by "Heads of Departments" who by appointing other presidents), Art. II, Ã,§2. Brady's law effectively transferred this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in 50 States, who were left to implement the program without the President's meaningful control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control was possible without the power to appoint and remove). Framers' insistence on unity in the Federal Executive - to ensure strength and accountability - is well known. See No Federalist. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (James Wilson's statement); see also Calabresi & amp; Prakash, The Power of the President to Implement the Law , 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). The unity will be destroyed, and the power of the President will be subject to abatement, if Congress can act effectively without a President like him, by simply requiring state officials to enforce its law.
Finally, the Court applied the past jurisprudence. The government has declared that the anti-command doctrine established in New York v. United States of America (1992), which states that Congress can not order the state legislature to pass laws or take ownership of nuclear waste, not applicable to state officials. Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court stated that the Tenth Amendment strictly prohibits the Federal Government from directing state officials directly. Thus, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriff to conduct unconstitutional background checks.
Justice O'Connor wrote the appropriate opinion, alone, highlighting that the court arrested a local Chief Justice Mainstay who was free to voluntarily adhere to the federal mandate.
Justice Thomas also added his own accord, clarifying that, in his opinion, the power of the interstate Commerce Congress does not apply to pure firearms transfer. Thomas went on to encourage the Court to one day consider the "colored argument" that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States grants individuals the personal right to own firearms.
Dissents
Judge John Paul Stevens, who joins Judge David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, respectfully disagree. Judge Stevens advised the Constitutional Trade Clause, giving the Federal government the right to administer the sale of a pistol, can be combined with a Necessary and Correct Clause, giving Congress the power to pass any law necessary and appropriate to carry out the previously mentioned powers.. The Tenth Amendment, Stevens explains, contains no additional restrictions on federal power, only serving to clarify that the Government has only the powers granted by the Constitution.
Stevens praised the benefits of cooperative federalism. The federal direction of state officials in this way is analogous to ordering mass inoculation of children to prevent epidemics, or directing state officials to respond to terrorist threats. He is deeply concerned about the ability of the federal government to respond to national emergencies and does not believe that "there is something in the 10 amendments" in historical understanding and practice, within the structure of the Constitution, or in this jurisprudence. Court, 'which prohibits registration of state officials to make the response effective. "In addition, the text of the Constitution does not support a clear proposition. The majority of that" a local police officer may disregard the orders contained in the law passed by Congress under the delegation of powers mentioned in Article I. "
Judge Souter put forward a different opinion, stressing that he read Federalist No. 1. 27 as providing much of the evidence that Framers' original intent was to ask states to act as helpers of the Federal government.
Justice Breyer posed a different opinion, joining Judge Stevens, using international comparative law to observe that federalism found in many foreign countries gives the central government some authority over subnational jurisdiction.
Next development
The immediate effect of the decision on Brady Bill can be ignored. Most local and state law enforcement officers support provisional provisions and are happy to adhere to background checks. This issue concludes with the completion of a federal background check database. However, Printz v. The United States is an important decision to support the rights of the State and New Federalism.
Professor Ann Althouse has stated that Printz applies to the US government's response to the September 11 attacks because "the autonomy of state and local governments can put pressure on the federal government to moderate efforts and be careful not to offend the constitution of rights. "
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court adopted the advice of the Thomas Justice's consent that the Constitution grants individuals the personal right to own firearms.
US District Judge John Roll, who originally declared the Brady Law unconstitutional, was shot and killed in the 2011 Tucson shooting, the same mass shootings in which congressman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head.
See also
- United States v. Lopez (1995) (found that Congress has no Clause Trade power over carrying weapons near the school zone)
- List of US Supreme Court cases, volume 521
- List of US Supreme Court cases
- List of US Supreme Court cases by volume
References
External links
- Text Printz v. United States , 521 US 898 (1997) is available from: Ã, Findlaw Ã, Justia
- Notes in Columbia Law Review that distinguish pre-conditional conditional vs. commandeering
- A very thorough case analysis
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments