Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Alaska Purchase Is Probably Unconstitutional
Republican leaders cant buy off Sen. Lisa Murkowskis vote this way.
As Republican leadership searches for the 50th vote in favor of Graham-Cassidy, their apparently randomly chosen vehicle for repealing the Affordable Care Act, rumors abound of a sweetheart deal aimed at securing Sen. Lisa Murkowskis vote. The so-called Alaska Purchase would maintain existing premium federal tax credits for those purchasing health insurance on the individual market, but only in Alaska and Hawaii. Sen. Mike Lees office told the Daily Beast that hes been assured there will be no Alaska Purchase, but that same report describes the Alaska Purchase as an offer that has been made that would create this tax carve-out for multiple smaller states. Can Congress do that?
Probably not. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. Former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, writing in 1834, thought that the point of that provision was to prevent coalitions of states from ganging up, in Congress, to benefit themselves at the expense of others. While the uniformity clause has been watered down over time, it should still be enough to swamp the Alaska Purchase proposal. Ironically, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Grahamthe Graham of Graham-Cassidyrecognized the potential constitutional problems inherent in such a scheme seven years ago during the Obamacare debates: In 2010, he reportedly asked his states attorney general to look into the constitutionality of a similar proposal known as the Cornhusker Kickback that would have benefited Nebraska.
The leading recent authority on the Uniformity Clause is, coincidentally, also a case from Alaska, U.S. v. Ptasynski. In 1980, Congress imposed a windfall profits tax on domestically extracted oil but exempted some Alaskan oil. The court explained in its 1983 ruling that it had historically taken a pretty narrow view of the Uniformity Clause, allowing Congress to enact taxes that have disproportionately benefited specific states, as long as the taxes applied at the same rate, in all portions of the United States where the subject of the tax is found. That left open the question whether a tax that on its face imposed different rates on different states could survive.
That question, the court decided, would be subject to something that looks like elevated scrutiny. Where Congress does choose to frame a tax in geographic terms, we will examine the classification closely to see if there is actual geographic discrimination, the court ruled. To survive that scrutiny, Congress would have to show neutral factors that would justify the distinction. A purpose to grant an undue preference at the expense of other states would flunk the test.
Probably not. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. Former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, writing in 1834, thought that the point of that provision was to prevent coalitions of states from ganging up, in Congress, to benefit themselves at the expense of others. While the uniformity clause has been watered down over time, it should still be enough to swamp the Alaska Purchase proposal. Ironically, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Grahamthe Graham of Graham-Cassidyrecognized the potential constitutional problems inherent in such a scheme seven years ago during the Obamacare debates: In 2010, he reportedly asked his states attorney general to look into the constitutionality of a similar proposal known as the Cornhusker Kickback that would have benefited Nebraska.
The leading recent authority on the Uniformity Clause is, coincidentally, also a case from Alaska, U.S. v. Ptasynski. In 1980, Congress imposed a windfall profits tax on domestically extracted oil but exempted some Alaskan oil. The court explained in its 1983 ruling that it had historically taken a pretty narrow view of the Uniformity Clause, allowing Congress to enact taxes that have disproportionately benefited specific states, as long as the taxes applied at the same rate, in all portions of the United States where the subject of the tax is found. That left open the question whether a tax that on its face imposed different rates on different states could survive.
That question, the court decided, would be subject to something that looks like elevated scrutiny. Where Congress does choose to frame a tax in geographic terms, we will examine the classification closely to see if there is actual geographic discrimination, the court ruled. To survive that scrutiny, Congress would have to show neutral factors that would justify the distinction. A purpose to grant an undue preference at the expense of other states would flunk the test.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/republican_leaders_can_t_buy_off_sen_lisa_murkowski_s_vote_this_way.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1662 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Alaska Purchase Is Probably Unconstitutional (Original Post)
spanone
Sep 2017
OP
Considering how Zinke screwed up her relationship with the White House the last time
Pope George Ringo II
Sep 2017
#6
Tanuki
(14,919 posts)1. When I saw your headline, I thought OMG, Seward acted illegally and now
we have to give Alaska back to the Russians!
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/alaska-purchase
tanyev
(42,572 posts)2. That was the Russians' end game all along!
Wounded Bear
(58,670 posts)5. I know...
I always figured Putin was trying to get Alaska back.
delisen
(6,044 posts)7. Alaska......the next Ukraine.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)3. The attempt to bribe an US Senator is indeed illegal
dalton99a
(81,519 posts)4. Great article.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)6. Considering how Zinke screwed up her relationship with the White House the last time
It says a lot about their situation that they have to work so hard to get her on board in the first place.
And yeah, I thought about Seward, too. I knew he was pretty Constitutionally questionable in Indiana, but Alaska would have been new to me.