翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States v. Ballin
・ United States v. Banki
・ United States v. Barker
・ United States v. Behrman
・ United States v. Bell Tel. Co.
・ United States v. Belmont
・ United States v. Bestfoods
・ United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind
・ United States v. Binion
・ United States v. Booker
・ United States v. Bormes
・ United States v. Brechner
・ United States v. Brewster
・ United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
・ United States v. Burton
United States v. Butler
・ United States v. Camacho
・ United States v. Carmack
・ United States v. Carolene Products Co.
・ United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
・ United States v. Causby
・ United States v. Chadwick
・ United States v. Choi
・ United States v. City of Portland
・ United States v. Clark
・ United States v. Classic
・ United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co.
・ United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co.
・ United States v. Colgate & Co.
・ United States v. Comstock


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v. Butler : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v. Butler

''United States v. Butler'', , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. Justice Owen Roberts argued that the tax was "but a means to an unconstitutional end" that violated the Tenth Amendment.
==A tax for an impermissible regulatory purpose==

The main issue of the case was whether certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 conflicted with the Constitution. In the Act, a tax was imposed on processors of farm products, the proceeds to be paid to farmers who would reduce their area and crops. The intent of the act was to increase the prices of certain farm products by decreasing the quantities produced.
The Court held that the so-called tax was not a true tax,〔 because the payments to farmers were coupled with unlawful and oppressively coercive contracts〔 and the proceeds were earmarked for the benefit of farmers complying with the prescribed conditions. The court also held that making the payment of a government subsidy to a farmer conditional on the reduction of his planned crops went beyond the powers of the national government.〔 Specifically, Justice Roberts said:
The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.


抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v. Butler」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.