News on Youtube Dec 5 2017

Carlo Marinello is the petitioner in this case.

He was convicted by the DOJ of tax fraud as well as obstruction.

He owned and operated his own freight couriering business.

He did not keep a tight ship.

He was accused of impeding the administration of the tax code by failing to maintain corporate

books and records, failing to provide his accountant with complete and accurate information

related to his personal income and the income of his business, destroying and discarding

business records.

The government, in this case, claims that Mr. Marinello committed north tax fraud and

obstruction.

The IRS has defined obstruction as any attempt to interfere with the day-to-day work of the

IRS.

Mr. Marinello admits that he committed tax fraud.

But he says that he can't also be convicted of obstruction when he did not even know that

an investigation was underway.

The fighting issue in this case really is: Can a defendant be said to have a criminal

state of mind to obstruct when he doesn't know that an investigation is in process.

More typically in criminal cases, obstruction is related to after-the-fact behavior.

Section 7212(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says, "Whoever corruptly, or by force, endeavors

to obstruct or impede the due administration of this title shall, upon conviction therefore,

be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The term corruptly goes to a defendant's state of mind, and state of mind is a very important

question in every criminal case.

State of mind, or scienter, as the law defines it, is an element of almost every criminal

offense.

A person cannot be guilty of a crime unless he intended to cross a certain line.

So whether or not Mr. Marinello possessed the requisite state of mind is a critical

question in this case.

As it's written, it's very broad.

The IRS gets to decide whether or not their procedures have been interfered with.

A broad interpretation of the statute gives the IRS more power to pursue more wrongdoers.

The government's position, in this case, is that every hour of every day, the United States

IRS is administering the tax code.

The IRS basically says that Mr. Marinello, as a business owner, should have known that

is conduct violated tax law.

Mr. Marinello says that although he may have ad- violated the tax law, he did not know

that he was obstructing in any way a pending investigation.

Statutes have to be clear enough that a reasonable man would know he was violating them.

The government's best argument is its reliance on the plain language of the statute.

The statute in question nowhere mentions a pending investigation, nowhere requires the

defendant have knowledge of a pending investigation.

And the government says, by its own terms, the statute does not require this additional element.

The government argues that Mr. Mar- Marinello has simply made this up to suit his own situation.

A victory for the government is the ability to send a strong message to taxpayers that

they will be pursued aggressively for any perceived violation of the tax laws.

And this case would certainly embolden the IRS to continue to seek aggressive judgments

and prosecutions against defendants whether or not they knew an investigation was underway.

For more infomation >> Marinello v. United States [SCOTUSbrief] - Duration: 4:00.

-------------------------------------------

Printz v United States | quimbee.com - Duration: 4:53.

- [Narrator] The United States Supreme Court

is known to save the announcement

of its most controversial case

for the last day of each term.

It's no wonder that Printz versus United States

was announced just as the justices were headed out the door

to close the 1997 term.

The case raises deeply divisive issues

involving gun control and the balance of power

between the states and the federal government.

Enacted by Congress in 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act was a federal gun control statute

that established a nationwide

handgun background check system.

While gearing up to implement the nationwide system,

interim provisions of the Brady Act

temporarily required state and local officials,

rather than federal officials, to conduct

the background checks of prospective firearm purchasers.

Under these interim provisions, firearm sellers

were required to report pending firearm sales

to county police chiefs who were then required

to conduct a background check and validate the sale.

County sheriffs Joe Printz and Richard Mack

brought separate lawsuits arguing that the Brady Act

unconstitutionally compelled state officers

to enforce a federal statute.

Both district courts agreed and struck down the provision

as unconstitutional.

The court of appeals for the ninth circuit

consolidated the cases and reversed,

holding that the interim provision was constitutional.

The United States Supreme Court granted cert.

The issue before the court was whether Congress

can compel state officials to participate

in the implementation of a federal program.

The court held that under the

10th Amendment's anti-commandeering principle,

Congress may not compel state officials

to administer a federal regulatory program.

Justice Scalia, writing for the five to four court,

explained that there was no historical evidence

that Congress ever had the power to compel

state executives into federal service.

Early congressional enactments showed

that the constitution allowed the imposition

of federal standards only on state judges

who apply those standards in deciding cases,

but not on officers of the state's executive branch.

Next, Scalia considered how the Brady Act

conflicted with constitutional structure.

First, the 10th Amendment sets up

a system of dual sovereignty under which

the states retain a significant amount of autonomy.

Scalia noted that the act upset the careful balance of power

between the federal government in the states.

Federal power would increase dramatically, Scalia reasoned,

if it could enlist into service

the police officers of the 50 states.

Additionally, the court held that the Brady Act

violated the constitutional separation of powers principle

because the power to execute the laws is provided

to the president and federal

executive branch officials only.

Congress can't delegate federal executive power

to state law enforcement officers

as it attempted to do here.

Lastly, the court cited New York versus United States

which had determined that Congress can't force

state legislators to enact laws

according to federal instructions.

Scalia concluded that because Congress

can't mandate state legislatures to act,

it can't mandate state executive officers to act either.

As a result, the court held that the Brady Act's

employment of state officers to conduct

background searches was unconstitutional.

The court reversed the court of appeals.

Justice O'Connor filed a concurring opinion

to note that state officials could still voluntarily

comply with the Brady Act, despite the court's decision.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion

agreeing with the court's analysis

but further arguing that under the current state

of the commerce clause doctrine,

congress didn't have the authority

to regulate the in-state transfer of firearms.

Justice Stevens dissented.

He argued that Congress had the authority

to enact the Brady Act under the commerce clause.

Congress may also impose enforcement obligations

on state officials under the necessary and proper clause.

Stevens reasoned that the framers envisioned a system

in which the federal government may act

for the benefit of the nation as a whole,

and this sometimes requires the power

to make demands on state officials.

In another dissenting opinion,

Justice Souter examined the text of a federalist paper,

the supremacy clause, and oaths taken

by state officers to advance the argument

that state officials can be enlisted into service

on behalf of the national government.

Finally, Justice Breyer also dissenting,

cited examples from foreign nations

to demonstrate that successful systems of government

employed local authorities

to carry out national regulations.

Printz versus United States was a monumental federalism case

memorable for its narrow interpretation of federal power

and its staunch protection of

state autonomy from federal incursion.

For more infomation >> Printz v United States | quimbee.com - Duration: 4:53.

-------------------------------------------

Important Landmarks in the United States - Duration: 3:26.

A landmark is some recognizable place or thing that has significance for a group of people.

The United States has many landmarks that we see as important for different reasons, and today we will look at three of those.

The first landmark we will discuss is the White House.

The White House is the official residence and workplace of the President of the United States.

It is located in Washington D.C., the capital of the United States.

The address of the White House is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The White House was designed by Irish architect James Hoban and was under construction between 1792 and 1800.

It sits on 18 acres, and has been home to every U.S. president since John Adams in 1800.

The three main sections of the house are the West Wing, the East Wing, and the Executive Residence where the president and his family live.

The West Wing is where the president's personal office is, known as the Oval Office.

The White House receives around 6,000 visitors a day.

However, to get a tour you have to fill out an application 6 months in advance.

Our next landmark is the Statue of Liberty.

The Statue of Liberty is located on Liberty Island in New York City

and the figure represents a Roman Goddess named Libertas.

She is incredibly tall, about the height of a 30 story building.

The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to the people of the United States

and she stand for stands for freedom and liberty.

The tablet in her hand represents the law and has July 4, 1776 on it in Roman numerals.

There are broken chains at her feet that symbolize the United States' escape from tyranny.

The statue was completely finished in 1886 and a dedication ceremony was held.

Today, it is one of the most famous landmarks in the world and is visited by about 4 million people a year.

The last landmark we will look at is the Grand Canyon.

The Grand Canyon is located in northern Arizona.

It is a massive canyon of red rock, and at the bottom of the canyon runs the Colorado River.

The coolest part about this landmark is that it is completely natural and was not man-made

like the others we've discussed.

It was made by the Colorado River and the river has run through it for almost 2 billion years.

The weather in the Grand Canyon is extreme.

The temperature can rise up to 100 degrees in the summer and fall to 0 degrees in the winter.

About 5 million people visit this majestic canyon every year to hike, camp, bike,

or just walk around and enjoy the views.

There are many other incredible landmarks to visit across the world,

and plenty of them are right here in the United States.

If you haven't already, I hope that you get to visit at least one of the landmarks we talked about today

and experience the beauty of them for yourself!