Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Constitutional Law Outline Srg10

Constitutional Law Outline Srg10

Ratings: (0)|Views: 109 |Likes:
Published by Ghost1L

More info:

Published by: Ghost1L on Apr 12, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

02/06/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Constitutional Law I Prof. Barrett Spring 2010
1
The major areas of Constitutional Law:1.
 
Judicial Review
A
federal court may only hear a case if it involves a case or controversyunder
A
rt III of the Constitution.2.
 
S
eparation of Powers
A
 
S
eparation of Powers question involves the relationship betweenor among branches of the federal government.3.
 
F
ederalism
 
F
ederalism question involves the relationship between the federal government and the states.4.
 
Individual Rights
These questions typically involve a govt, fed or state, taking some actionwhich abridges the right of an individual.
A
n analysis should include the following steps: (i)Determine which govt is acting, (ii) identify the interest that has been abridged, (iii) placethe abridged interest in the Con, (iv) ascribe constitutional weight to the interest abridged,and (v) set the appropriate level of scrutiny.
J
udicial Function
:
y
 
A
rt. III, §1:
Provides the basis for and the scope of federal judicial power:
Th
ejudicial power of t 
h
e US s
h
all be vested in one Supreme Court, and in suc
h
inferior courts as
h
e Congress may from time to time ordain and establis
h
 Note: Establishes
S
.Ct. not thewhole system (thru subsequent Congressional acts).
 
y
 
A
rt. III, §2:
Th
e judicial power s
h
all extend to all cases, in law and equity, arisingunder t 
h
is Constitution, t 
h
e laws of t 
h
e US, and treaties made, or w
h
ic
h
s
h
all be made, under
h
eir aut 
h
ority
 
Note: Lays out judicial power
all cases under Constitution
language that grantsjudiciary cases under Constitution textual support for judicial review,
but 
no clear statement.
y
 
O
riginal
J
urisdiction
: The
S
upreme Court has original jurisdiction
in all casesaffecting ambassadors, ot 
h
er public ministers and consuls, and in t 
h
ose in w
h
ic
h
aState s
h
all be a party
o
 
U
nder present statutes, the
S
.Ct. has exclusive original jurisd only when a state suesa state; in all other cases involving the
S
.Cts original jurisd, Congress, under itspower to ordain and establish inferior federal courts, has conferred concurrent original jurisd on fed dist cts. The original jurisd of the
S
.Ct can neither be expandednor diminished by statute.o
 
Note: How Marshall relies on for ultimate decision in
M v. M 
no original jurisd forwrit of mandamus.
y
 
A
ppellate
J
urisdiction
: In all cases other than those listed under its
A
rt III originaljurisd, the
S
.Ct has appellate jurisd, with such exceptions and regulations as Congressshall make.o
 
U
nder this grant of app jurisd, the Court has app jurisd over all cases coming fromlower fed cts, and from cases coming from state courts, as long as state court casesinvolve a fed ques.
J
udicial Review:
Marbury v. Madison
y
 
Marbury
: Establishes the authority of the
S
up. Ct to interpret the Const. It is the foundationof judicial review of congressional laws.
 Note:
Marshall establishes judicial review in a very crafty way. Lost the smaller battle
no jurisd forwrit of mandamus, but wins the bigger battle
creates broad power of 
S
.Ct to interpret theConstitution. There are other ways he could have gone.
Mars
h
alls ingenuity
: He attacked the constitutionality of § 13 of the Judiciary
A
ct of 1789, underwhich Marbury sought the mandamus. By this tactic he could establish the
S
. Cts authority toreview the constitutionality of a laws enacted by Congress, drop Marshall diplomatically andcensure Jefferson. To do this, hwr, he had to reverse the order of the issues. Instead of deciding
 
Constitutional Law I Prof. Barrett Spring 2010
2
 
jurisd first, which would have defeated his purpose, for it would have meant the dismissal of thecase without the need for further comment, he considered the merits of Marburys case instead.
Issues:
(i) Has the applicant the right to the commission he demands? Yes, Marbury had a vestedright in the office, his appointment was non-revocable and protected by the laws of the country; (ii)If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of the country afford him a remedy?Yes, Marbury has a right to the commission, a refusal to deliver was a plain violation of that right,for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy. Marshall makes it clear that delivery was alegally mandated act and not political question of an executive officer performing a duty in whichthere was discretion; (iii) If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this Court?NO, a mandamus was the right remedy, but it could not be issued by the Court.
 
§ 13 of the Judiciary
A
ct of 1789 granted the Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus.Marshall reasoned that the Constitution conferred original and appellate jurisd on the
S
. Ct andits original jurisd only extended to ambassadors, etc and to those in which a state was a party.Congress, by law, could only grant appellate jurisd to the Court. To Marshall the issuance of awrit of mandamus was the same in effect as an original action and therefore belonged tooriginal jurisd and
@
§ 13 was unconstitutional. Tool of construction
plain meaning b/c theConstitution enumerates original jurisd, it is a finite list & clearly defined so Congress cant tryto expand.
 
By this maneuver, Marshall could develop his main point that the
S
Ct had the authority todeclare laws of Congress invalid when in violation of the Consit. He expounded the doctrine of judicial review:
It 
is empha
ically 
he province and du
y of 
he judicial depar 
men
 
o say wha
 
he law is. Those who appl
he rule
o par 
icular cases, mus
of necessi
y expound and in
erpre
 
ha
rule.
wo laws conflic
wi
h each o
her,
he cour 
s mus
decide on
he opera
ion of each
.
J
udicial Supremacy:
A
rt. VI, cl.2:
This
Constitution, and t 
h
e Laws of t 
h
e United States w
h
ic
h
s
h
all be made inPursuance t 
h
ereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
A
uthority of the
U
nited
S
tates,
s
h
all be t 
h
e supreme Law of t 
h
e Land
; and the Judges in every
S
tate shall be boundthereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
S
tate to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Constitutional Interpretation:1.
 
Textual: look at the written text of the Const.
 2.
 
Historical
A
rgument:
a.
 
Originalism: determining the original drafters intent or established the originalmeaning of its text 
 b.
 
V
ectors of history: look at the way the const. has changed over time. The const.is not static, it evolves contantly.
 3.
 
S
tructural
A
rgument: meaning can be derived from the structure of govt. It can be usedto add meaning to a textual provision that is otherwise ambiguous, or they may beemployed independent of any textual provision as a source of meaning of their own.Common when the underlying issue is federalism: Proper allocation of power b/wfederal and state govts or separation of powers: b/w the different branches of govt.
 4.
 
Doctrinal
A
rgument:
Stare Decisis:
rule of precedent:
A
sserts principles derived fromprecedent and sometimes judicial or academic commentary on precedent.
5.
 
Prudential:
A
dvancing particular doctrines according to the practical wisdom of usingthe courts in a particular way.
 6.
 
Cultural: rooted in widely shared cultural norms, such as nontextual sources as moralconcepts of justice, theories of human autonomy, and cultural assumptions about fairness.
 
 
Constitutional Law I Prof. Barrett Spring 2010
3
 
T
iers of Review:1.
 
Rational Basis:
The action must be
rationally related to ac
h
ieving alegitimate state objective and completely arbitrarily.
The first requirement is satisfied if the government is pursuing practically any type of health, safety, orgeneral welfare goal. The second requirement will be satisfied unless thegovernment has acted completely arbitrarily.
2.
 
Intermediate Scrutiny:
The actual purpose of the regulation is important and it is substantially related to an important government objective.
3.
 
Strict Scrutiny:
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy threeprongs:1.
 
Compelling governmental interest 
;2.
 
The law must be
narrowly tailored
to achieve that goal or interest.a.
 
If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive)or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowlytailored.3.
 
The law must be the
least restrictive means
for achieving that interest.a.
 
More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way toeffectively achieve the compelling government interest, but thetest will not fail just because there is another method that isequally the least restrictive.
y
 
The Const. does give Congress and the states one obvious method of rejecting and reversing
S
Ct decisions they dislike:
A
rt V
that permits amendment of almost every provision.
y
 
S
tates judges are obligated to apply federal law as superior to state law. They bound by theconstitution, their interpretations is subjected to the
S
up. Ct interpretations of what theconst. is.
o
 
A
llowing multiple interpretations will be chaos: There is a need for uniformity infederal law throughout the
U
nited
S
tates within the Const.
 
o
 
S
tates interpreting their own const. can expand the liberty beyond the quarantees of the Const, with the result that its citizens should enjoy greater liberty that citizens of other states
But,
they cannot extend such greater right to its citizens beyond that which is given by the Const.
 
o
 
Review of State
J
udgments:
Mar 
in v. Hun
ers Lessee
stands for the propositionthat the
S
up. Ct has the power under
A
rt. III to review the final decisions of statecourts in cases involving questions of federal law.
 
 
A
dequate & Independent State ground decisions:
The
S
up. Ct cannot review state courts ruling on issues of state law. Both is needed to insulatethe state court from judicial review.
 
y
 
A
dequate:
A
state ground of decision is adequate if it fully supportsthe result and does not conflict with the Const., federal statute, andfederal treaty. However, a state decision will be deemed not adequate if a state decision has attempted to take away rightsprotected by the Const., laws, or treaties of the
U
.
S
.
 
y
 
Independent:
is one that is not based on the state courtsunderstanding of federal law.
A
mistake by the state court in itsunderstanding of federal law would undermine both the federal andstate decision. Put simply, state decision must be independent of federal law. It must reach its own conclusion.
o
 
Michigan v. Long:
rests on the principle that state courtsinterpretation of the Const. must exactly match that of the

You're Reading a Free Preview

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