<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>May Taxpayers Challenge Federal Spending Laws? by Nora Cordova</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/320849/8p3ho9qmcnzx</link>
      <description>Made with the help of a typing monkey</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2017-04-11 20:12:06 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2017-04-12 05:44:41 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Flast V. Cohen (1968)</title>
         <author>320849</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/320849/8p3ho9qmcnzx/wish/165978115</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>_ Flast, one group of seven taxpayers who didn't want federal funds to support religious schools under Elementary and secondary educations acts of 1965.<br>- Believed that funding those schools would be a violation to the First amendment.&nbsp; &nbsp;<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. Establishment of religion&nbsp;<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2.Forcing group to pay taxes to support religious activities.&nbsp;<br>- The group sued Secretary of health, Education, and Welfare Wilbur J. Cohen and other federal officials&nbsp;<br>- Three-judge federal court ruled that the Flast group did not have a "standing" to continue with the suit. A "Standing" is a legal requirement under which a person can file a suit only if she or he has a personal stake in the outcome of the case.<br>-Plaintiff's only stake was their capacity as taxpayer and this was enough to not give them a standing.<br>- In 1923 the case of Frothing-ham v. Mellon, the supreme court ruled that an individual could not challenge an act of congress because of individual's tax bill. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-04-11 20:20:19 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/320849/8p3ho9qmcnzx/wish/165978115</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Arguments For Flast </title>
         <author>320849</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/320849/8p3ho9qmcnzx/wish/166015710</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>1. Frothing-ham doesn't mean that a taxpayer isn't able to challenge the constitution of an act of congress. Just means that the person's taxpayer must not, by itself, give him or her standing to pose in a challenge. Plaintiffs have a personal stake in the outcome of a case and should be allowed to proceed. <br>2. There are Connections between plaintiffs' taxpayers and their claims in the case. 1st amendment gives congress the power to collect taxes in order to support religion. As taxpayers this gives them a direct and concrete outcome of the case. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-04-12 04:51:57 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/320849/8p3ho9qmcnzx/wish/166015710</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Arguments for Cohen </title>
         <author>320849</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/320849/8p3ho9qmcnzx/wish/166018124</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>1.Plaintiffs have sufficient standing which helps prevent unnecessary lawsuit to ensure those with serious stakes to bring cases.<br>2. People with no interest in a controversy besides the amount of taxes may be involved but can not be allowed to sue in federal court. &nbsp;</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-04-12 05:33:09 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/320849/8p3ho9qmcnzx/wish/166018124</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
