Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Con Law Flow Charts

Con Law Flow Charts



|Views: 56,324|Likes:
Published by biferguson
constitutional law, outline, flowcharts
constitutional law, outline, flowcharts

More info:

Published by: biferguson on Apr 29, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less



Constitutional LawGeneral Types of Arguments
Lessimportant toOriginalists
Structure oftheConstitution(broadly)
Other Parts ofConstitution
Social PolicyAnd/OrConsequencesof DecisionWords andplacement
Mix of All ofthe Above(esp. historyand text)Judicial Review&
Marshall’s Opinion in
Marbury v. Madison 
Court’s Role in
Interpreting theConstitutionReview ofEXECUTIVE &LEGISLATIVELimits &RestraintsPolitical & Discretionary ActsNon-DiscretionaryRights of IndividualsBeginning ofPolitical QuestionDoctrine
SpecificIntentAt timeTraditionNaturalLawProcesses
of Gov‟t
Mix ofOpinion
Directed to perform certainacts, individual rights,officer of the lawPolitical powers, actionsrespect the nation & not indrights
conscience guidesConstitution issupreme law ofland and SCOTUSis in charge ofinterpreting
Appellate review ofdecisions arisingunder theConstitution
Issues “especiallyfor the courts”
Judges take anoath to theConstitution &must uphold(hence review)Supremacy Clause
laws are made in
pursuance of the Constitution 
Judiciability Doctrine
Article III
Linked to Desirability of Judicial Review
Broad & Narrow View
Policy Decision
Actual Disputebetween AdverseLitigants
& nothypothetical
Must BringSomeChange
Hayburn Case 
No overrideby Sec. ofDef of aSupremeCourtdecision
Plout Case 
:No overturnby C of afinal judgment(yes toprospective& inlitigation)
CausationInjury In Fact
Failure topurchase airline
tickets… whether 
imminent enoughof a threat(speculation)
Mass v. EPA
:Congress givingpower to create IIF
weight of report &whether concreteinjury is clear
Consideredtogether generallyTriggers forStanding Problems
Generalized Grievance
Gov‟t failing to follow the law and
bringing suit to do so (injury in fact)
Third Party Actor
That gov‟t is failing to regulate some
party -
q‟s about
causation & redressability(Allen v. Wright
IRS failure on tax exemptions for raciallysegregated schools; Lujan: failure of Sec of Interior onendangered species)
Separation ofPowersProblems
:Court not havingthe ability todetermine law,concerns aboutoverstepping
(like IIF)
Pre-Enforcement Review
ofStatute or Regulation(
Abbott Labs 
Hardship for having to wait 
*generally economichardship will allow CT topush through
Factual Development: 
*the more facts that canbe developed the lesschance of a review
Capable of Repetition yet Evading Review 
(a) every time that it comes up, itwill be short lived(b) for individual
likely to find forthe exception(c) unanswered for ind v. class
Voluntary Cessation: 
(a) no realisticchance that Dwill go back toharmful conductRendering adecision is nolonger possible orpurposeful, orwould be hypo
As a whole, thequestion is incapable of judicial reviewA. IV, Sec. 4 =Guaranty Clause =always non-justiciable
Final decision wouldlead to a politicaloutcome(Both sides point
back to Marshall‟s
Opinion in MvM)
Baker FactorsTextuallyCommitted
toAnother BranchArt. I, Sec. 5Lack of judiciallydiscoverable andmanageablestandards forresolution(
Potential for anotherbranch,
question, or
to anotherbranch
Often occurtogether
Class Actions: 
Self-interestedparties arestilladvocating
Concrete, certain, and ripe for review
normally needviolation; sometimes just never enforced or toohypothetical
(a) probability that event will occur (b)hardship to parties if denied, (c) fitness of record todetermine legal issues presented
Collateral consequences 
Effect will belonger lastingeven if seeminglydecided(
Poe v. Ullman 
 no actualprosecution)
WashingtonQuestion toJustices
:Refused toanswer b/cadvisory andnotnecessary
“Personal injury fairly traceable to the D‟s allegedlyunlawful conduct and redressed by requested relief”
(a) distinct &palpable, (b) notabstract orhypothetical, (c)personally injuredFairly traceable to theaction of D, generallymeasures Ps stake inthe outcome
:Failure to showthe possiblefuture injury(D: Marshall)
Whether ruling wouldbind D and have aneffect for P
:Access toinformation wasenough to meetstandard
:Actual payment ofchild support notguaranteed
Notes: -Only 1 need standing -State surrender of rights 
Mass v. EPA
:Third party
Powell v.McCormack 
:House adjudicatorypower of Art I, Sec. 5,but determined onlyas qualifications notpower to not seat
:Rescinding a treaty,question left forexecutive, must lookat terms ofconstitution to thisfactor
:Not appropriate ifonly left toinferences, dissent(Brennan) says thatforeign relations canbe det by SCOTUS
:If there would bemultipledeterminations fromdifferent branches of
Tied to Const.Eval through
:Const. did givestandards House/ Senate to act &would not beappropriate for SC todetermine
Vertical Separation of Powers:FEDERALISM
Enumerated PowersRationale
Amendment &
States‟ Rights
RationalesEffectiveness ofthe FederalGovernmentHistorical IssuesHistoricalUnderstanding ofthe CommerceClauseArt. I, Sec 8
McCulloch v. MD 
Marshall gives a verybroad interpretation ofNecessary & ProperClause, importance ofConst in regulation of pplnot the states; implied/ inherent powers justified
Early Interpretation
“All leg powersherein granted”
Article IGenerally Sec. 8
Necessary &Proper Clause(17)
(must be tied topower in Sec 8)
Gibbons v. Ogden 
:Broad interstate, butconsidered a broad sphereof independence*when only affects 1 stateCommerce =
Area for Congressional Regulation = intermingledand sharing among state commerce
1890s to 1937:State Sovereignty
Narrow definition of „commerce‟
restrictive of „among the states‟
(3) Cong violates 10
when in area of states
1937 to 1990s:
Broad Nat’l Power 
Wickard v. Fillmore (1942) 
:Broad interstate, but considered a broadsphere of independence - *when only affects1
; disband ideas of directness,production, et al
1990s to Today:Shift Back
Cong. Limits
Exclusively StateRights for SomeSpheres & 10
 amd back in actionManufacturing v.CommerceDirect v. IndirectBright LineApproachesMore of aSpectrumApproach toDeterminingCongressionalPowerVery few limits onCongressionalPower, started byG. DepressionLimits to C reg based on effect on 1 state =completely internalPrevent federaltyranny
Enhance democraticrule closer to pplStates as laboratoriesfor projectsElections will be limit,not 10
Protection of States‟
RightsSenators no longerelected by state govt
EC Knight 
: direct effects test
 mfer is not commerce, no reg ifw/ no effect on other state
Carter Coal 
: commerce goingelsewhere is NOT subject toregs when inside state
TX Railway 
: intrastate cannotdamage industry in anotherstate (move to intra)
Stream ofCommerce
ALA Schechter 
: not SOCamong states, not direct
Amendment Limits: Next Page
NLRB v. Jones (1937) 
:Steel production regs; statute defines
“affecting commerce”
- effect on commerceNOT the injury needed for inspection
Look at effect oncommerce, not injury itself
Darby (1941) 
:Overturn Dagenhart, intrastate which soaffect interstate commerce or the exercise ofpower of Congress over to make legitimateend
w/in Cong power
Effect on interstatecommerce generally
Broad “Among the States”
Regulation Permitted
Heart of Atlanta (1964) 
:Moral wrong allowed for regulation, disruptiveeffect that racial discrimination has had oncommercial intercourse
means must bereasonably adapted to the end permittedby Const.
Katzenbach (1964) 
:Within state = completely within and does notaffect other States & not interfering with othergoals of govt; - the interstate nature of therestaurant permitted regulation
Hodel (1981) 
:Strip-Mining: Regulation permitted so long asrational basis by Congress for regulating
Perez (1971) 
:Loan-sharking, Congressional enactmentand basis for regulation (even criminal)
Federalism protectsindividuals
Madison‟s Double
Noneconomic criminal willlikely fail under Comm ClMust be tied to CongressAuthorizationNot traditional stateactivity (fam, ed, land)Congress should giveexpression of justification10
Amd = Limit oncommandeering and stateacting for fed govtChannels affirmed for reg

Activity (144)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
dannyculpepper89 liked this
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
jjandbobscribd liked this
balindacraig liked this
swozi liked this
Ruben Santiago liked this
Jamie Chapman liked this
Yi Yon Yap liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->