Midterm 1 Flashcards
Constitutional Interpretation
1) Textualism – focus on written word
2) Originalism –historical focus, original intent, original meaning
3) Structuralism – broad focus, interpret words in light of the whole text, uphold integrated whole (maintain federalism, separation of powers)
4) Precedent – consistent with past, stare decisis
5) Prudential – practical concers: role of judiciary (restraint, deterrence), Compliance, social effects of rulinh
6) Aspirational – evolving meaning, Constitution broad has adaptable priinciples
7) living constitution – contemporary meaning
8) Legal Realism – judges as poltical actors
Legal Realism
1) judges as political actors
2) Attitudinal model: vote = politcal idealogy
3) institutional model: institutional constraints, internalize situational role
Marbury v. Madison
1) Background: 1803 (E19) “midnight appointments” Marbury seeks appointment in writ of mandamus asfter rejection of appt by madison
2) Constitutional Questions
Violation of legal rights of Marbury?– yes commission granted, has right to legal redress
Does SCOTUS have power to grant redress? – no Judiciary act is unconstitutional, Conggress cannot extend authority of the court
3) Precedent – JUDICIAL REVIEW – ability to strike down laws
4) Escapes dilemma, grants Jefferson small victory
Alternatives to Judicial Review
1) Eakin v Raub– Gibson’s Dissnet
2) Legislative Supremacy – e.g. repeal of the alien and sedition acts 1798
3) State Nullification? –> McCulloch v Maryland
4) Departamentalism – each branch responsible for own domain, co-equal branches, no one supreme
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
1) Background: Conflict over land inheritance with foreign party
2) SCOTUS decide with foreign party based on treaty, VI SC rejects SCOTUS decision
3) Constitutional Questions:
SCOTUS Appellate Power–jurisdiction over state courts?
SCOTUS single highest court in US?
4) Decision: SCOTUS has authority over state courts
a) nature of const, govt of people not states
b) text of the const
– art III = single court, appellate power
– art VI = Supremacy Clause. fed > state
5) SIG: makes clear nature of the union and the SCOTUS is the supreme law of the land
McCulloch v. Maryland
1) Background: 1819 (E19) National Bank taxed by Maryland
2) Constitutional Questions:
Can Congress charter bank (Const power)?
Can MD tax national bank (can states impede nat govt)?
3) Maryland Claim: Compact Theory – “sovereign and independent states” narrow reading of implied powers = not expressley granted, then reserved to states
4) Marshall: broad reading of Doctrine of implied powers = const broad outline needs to be applied to different situations
Necessary and proper clause (1.8)
5) Marshall: State cannot tax nat govt: Supremacy clause, govt of the people not states
nature of tax power= no tax without rep
nat power subject to nat limitis
Doctrine of Implied Powers
1) Elastic clause = (1.8)
2) McCulloch V Maryland = Marshall’s broad reading
3) often cited to justify federal expansion i.e. mculloch v maryland
The Taney Court
Doctrines of Justiciability
1) “case and controversy” – standing, mootness, ripeness
2) Political questions – Marbury v. Madison
3) Luther v. Borden
Background: Dorr’s rebellion – illegitimate search and seisure? illegit govt?
Const Q: Guarantee Clause: rep for of govt, Which Rhode Island Govt? Can court decide?
Decision: defer to congress (if peaceful) and exec (if insurgency)
Judicial restraint!
Judicial Obstruction
1) Court as countermajoritatian institution
2) Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse vs FDR, New Deal Democrats
3) The Civil Rights Cases
4) Lochner v. New York
constitutional questions: can state regulate work hours?
violation of Substative due process? Pol Question?
majority = no, o rational basis for regulation of substantive due process
Lochner v. New York
1) constitutional questions: can state regulate work hours?
violation of Substative due process? Pol Question?
2) majority = no, o rational basis for regulation of substantive due process
3) harlan’s dissent = Rational basis test
a) defer to minimally reasonable judgement
b) IF law is unwise –> people will correct it
c) Court should not be super-legislative
d) political question?
Cooper v Aaron
1) Background: Little Rock desegregation, Brown v Board challenged by Arkansas Gov, Eisenhower send in national gaurd
2) Const Q: State right to refute SCOTUS decision, defy nationalgovernment
3) Court: no 14th amendment
6. 2 Supremacy clause
4) cites Marshall in Marbury v Madison
Baker vs Carr
1) Background: 1962 (L 20) gross jerrymandering from rural to urban areas on state and national level
2) Constitutional Questions
a) Violation of guarantee clause (rep form of govt)?
b) Violation of Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment)
c) Is there a judicial remedy?
3) Decision
a) guarantee clause = politcal
b) equal protection clause = judiciable, establsihed via case law
c) Reverse jerrymandering, remand lower courts to address with standard of one person one vote
3) Frankfurter’s Concerns
- no fixed standard, court decide philisophical dispute
- judicial authority req. neutrality
- practical concerns: to overturn impacts every state
- see court as sole portector of rights
4) Brennan’s Political Question Doctrine – textual guidance, clear objective standard, prudential
Brennan’s Political Question Doctrine Test
Baker v Carr
1) Textual guidance
- textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to coordinate pol department
2) Clear, Objective Standards
- lack of judicial standards
- impossible to decide without determining initial policy of a non-judicial discretion
3) Prudential
- No independent resolution without disrespecting other branches
- unusual need for unconstitutional adherence to pol decision already made
- embarassment of court due to lack of enforcement
4) Application to Luther v Borden
- SCOTUS make ruling? not political question?
New York v US
1) Background: 1992 (L20) Disposal of nuclear waste
- state agreement, congressional enforcement
- Low Level Radioactive Waste Act
2) Challenged provsions: monetary (surcharge), Access (inc surcharge, deny access), “Take Title”
3) Constitutional Questions:
- Does Congress have Regulation Power over states?
- Does such regulation violate federal separation of powers?
4) Majority Justice O’ Connor - FORMALISM
- generally adheres to precedent
- accepts expansive fed powers
- draws limit at “take title” – fed cant commandeer state govt, order legislation
- cites “residual and inviolable state sov: states forced to act on fed will
- accountability: state officials held responsible for fed program
- div of powers, branches cannot give away authority
5) Justice White: Dissent - FUNCTIONALISM
- national crisis demands flexibility to address
- respect state innovation
6) CONT with McCulloch v Maryland – state sov beats out fed sov`
Printz v US (1997 L20)
1) Background: Gun Regulation, Brady Bill / CLEOs have to temporarily carry out background checks while fed govt
2) Constitutional Questions
- Valid extension of commerce power?
- Requires local law enforcement to enforce federal regulation –> violation of federalism?
3) Scalia (majority)
- violates national separation of powers
- undermines “unitary executive” by giving law enforcement power to officials
Structure: violates dual sovereignty, conccurrent authority of 2 govts
- use NY v US as precedent
4) Stevens: Dissent
-response to nat’l emergency (defer to leg judgement)
-minimal req of local officials, pass on onifo
- states rights not real limit to fed, powers extend as necessary, limits only as real amendment
- national representative elections check fed gov
