翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Flashy Bull
・ Flashy Python
・ FLASK
・ Flask
・ Flask (casting)
・ Flask (unit)
・ Flask (web framework)
・ Flask Glacier
・ Flaskebekk
・ Flasou
・ Flass
・ Flassan
・ Flassans-sur-Issole
・ Flassavatnet
・ Flassigny
Flast v. Cohen
・ Flastroff
・ Flat
・ Flat (football)
・ Flat (geometry)
・ Flat (landform)
・ Flat (music)
・ Flat (tennis)
・ Flat adverb
・ Flat as a Pancake
・ Flat bar road bike
・ Flat Baroque
・ Flat Baroque and Berserk
・ Flat Bastion
・ Flat Bastion Magazine


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

Flast v. Cohen : ウィキペディア英語版
Flast v. Cohen

''Flast v. Cohen'', 392 U.S. 83 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that a taxpayer has standing to sue the government to prevent an unconstitutional use of taxpayer funds.
In 1923 the Supreme Court decided in ''Frothingham v. Mellon'', 262 U.S. 447 (1923), that a taxpayer did not have standing to sue the federal government to prevent expenditures if her only injury is an anticipated increase in taxes. ''Frothingham v. Mellon'' did not recognize a constitutional barrier against federal taxpayer lawsuits. Rather, it denied standing because the petitioner did not allege "a breach by Congress of the specific constitutional limitations imposed upon an exercise of the taxing and spending power." Because the purpose of standing is to avoid burdening the court with situations in which there is no real controversy, standing is used to ensure that the parties in the suit are properly adversarial, "not whether the issue itself is justiciable."
In 1968 Florance Flast joined several others in filing suit against Wilbur Cohen, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, contending that spending funds on religious schools violated the First Amendment's ban on the establishment of religion. The district court denied standing, and the Supreme Court heard the appeal.
==Majority Opinion (Chief Justice Earl Warren)==
In Flast, Warren established a "double nexus" test which a taxpayer must satisfy in order to have standing. First, he must "establish a logical link between () status and the type of legislative enactment attacked." Second, "show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations upon the exercise of the taxing and spending power and ''not'' simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Article I, Section 8." Only when both nexuses have been satisfied may the petitioner have standing to sue.

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「Flast v. Cohen」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.