CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Card Set Information

Author:
cardonad
ID:
84139
Filename:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Updated:
2011-05-06 19:44:27
Tags:
CON LAW
Folders:

Description:
CON LAW FRIEDMAN
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user cardonad on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. Marbury v. Madison
    • POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
    • 1) est. preeminence of Constitution
    • 2) judicial review => judiciary have ultimate power to interpret Constitution
    • - Court have power to invalidate gov't action repugnant to the Constitution
    • - it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial dept. to say what the law IS

    • 1803
    • Marshall

    SCOTUS has the power, implied from Article VI, § 2 of the Constitution, to review acts of Congress and if they are found repugnant to the Constitution, to declare them void
  2. Marbury v. Madison
    • 1803
    • Marshall
    • JUDICIAL REVIEW RULE:
    • SC has the power to review acts of Congress an if they are found repugnant to the Constitution, to declare them void
  3. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
    SCOTUS AUTHORITY TO REVIEW STATE CT JDGT



    • 1816
    • STORY

    SC review of STATE action when FED Q involve.

    SC’s appellate jurisdiction extends to state court judgments that involve federal law.
  4. Cooper v. Aaron
    1958

    J. WARREN

    State officials may NOT disobey federal court orders that are based on SC's interpretation of Constitution

    Fed judiciary is supreme in exposition of law of Constitution

    SC's interpretation of Constitution is binding on State legislatures, executives, and judicial officers
  5. REQUIRED CONDITIONS for CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION
    SC and lower fed cts will ONLY hear justiciable cases [cases appropriate for fed adjudication on merits]
  6. REQUIRED CONDITIONS for CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION

    SOURCE of JUSTICIABILITY STANDARD
    Art. III, Sec. - required case or controversy

    general SC policies developed apart from Constitution
  7. REQUIRED CONDITIONS for CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION

    ADVISORY OPINION
    FED CTS may not issue advisory opinions

    issues must arise out of an actual or current case or controversy b/t adverse litigants

    adjudication of hypothetical or removed disputes would result in advisory opinions [which fed cts may not issue]

    SCRIMP - Case or controversy = advisory opinion
  8. REQUIRED CONDITIONS for CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION

    STANDING
    P must have STANDING to invoke adjudicatory power of fed cts

    • to establish STANDING - P must show: [CRIIA]
    • 1) Causation
    • 2) Redressability
    • 3) Injury-in-fact
    • a) that injury-in-fact is Imminent AND
    • b) Actual
  9. REQUIRED CONDITIONS for CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION

    STANDING

    Lujan v.Defenders of Wildlife
    • Lujan v.Defenders of Wildlife
    • [Scalia]
    • To est. STANDING – P must show
    • 1) causation
    • 2) redressability
    • 3) injury-in-fact.
    • Injury-in-fact must be imminent or actual, if threatened harm is TOO far in future or TOO speculative STANDING will not be found.
  10. REQUIRED CONDITIONS for CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION

    STANDING

    MA v. EPA
    SPECIAL DEFERENCE WHEN PLAINTIFF IS A STATE ACTING FOR ITS CITIZENS

    when P is a STATE acting on behalf of its citizens – the usual rules of STANDING will apparently be relaxed

    individual-harm and causation requirements are especially likely to be relaxed where the P is a state suing in an ombudsman-like manner
  11. REQUIRED CONDITIONS for CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION

    STANDING

    TAXPAYER STANDING
    • taxpayer will have STANDING to challenge congressional expenditure ONLY if it meets dual-nexus test:
    • 1) expenditure must b exercise of power u/ TAXING & SPENDING CLAUSE
    • 2) expenditure must violate a specific constitutional provision that limits TAXING & SPENDING POWER [like prohibition against est. religion]
  12. REQUIRED CONDITIONS for CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION

    STANDING

    Flast v. Cohen
    allows taxpayers to challenge federal program under the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
  13. MOOTNESS

    When is a case "moot"?
    a case b/m moot when the controversy is resolved after the case is filed, BUT before the outcome of the case has been decided

    in order for a court to decide an issue, the issue cannot be "moot" - it must be a controversy at all stages of review, not just when the complaint is filed
  14. MOOTNESS relation to RIPENESS
    MOOT case is brought TOO LATE

    UNRIPE case brought TOO SOON
  15. RIPENESS
    it means that an issue presents ann immediate threat of harm

    an issue must be "ripe" in order for a court to resolve it
  16. What are POLITICAL QUESTIONS?
    • Issues that are considered non-justiciable b/c they are:
    • 1. issues the Constitution commits to another gov'tal branch [based on separation of powers principles]

    2. issues the judicial process is inherently incapable of resolving and enforcing [ex. foreign relations]
  17. CRITERIA for DETERMINING WHETHER a CASE presents a POLITICAL QUESTION
    • Baker v. Carr
    • 1. a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to Congress or the executive branch

    2. lack of judicial discoverable and manageable standards

    3. need for a single pronouncement from the branches

    • 4. difficulty or impossibility of devising effective judicial remedies
  18. COMMON POLITICAL QUESTIONS
    1. regulating military - committed to Congress

    2. impleaching President or another federal officer - committed to Congress

    3. Constitutional Amendments - committed to Congress

    4. disputes over war powers [b/t Congress & President]

    5. foreign relations [recognizing foreign gov't]

    6. republican form of gov't issues - no judicially managable stnd for determining if a form of gov't is republican
  19. Baker v. Carr
    SC may NOT entertain political question cases

    • Factors to be weighed in distinguishing political question cases include:
    • 1) whether the issue is committed to another gov'tal branch

    2) whether judicial standards exist for handling the issue

    3) whether there is a great need for uniform pronouncement on the issue
  20. CONGRESS has 3 principle types of powers
    1. expressed or enumerated power u/ Art. I, Sec. 8

    2. implied powers [McCulloch v. Maryland] - u/ Necessary and Proper Clause Art I, Sec. 8

    3. inherent powers - powers inherent in the concept of national gov't. The principal inherent powers is the foreign affairs power
  21. MAJOR POWERS OF CONGRESS
    PACE CRIED STABLE

    • Postal
    • Aliens, naturalization and citizenship
    • Columbia [power to govern DC]
    • Elections [Congressional]

    • Civil Rights - [power to enforce 13th, 14th, 15th A]
    • Interstate Commerce
    • External [foreign] Affairs
    • Defense

    • Spending for general welfare
    • Taxation
    • Admiralty
    • Bankruptcy
    • Lands owned [federally owned lands u/ property clause]
    • Eminent Domain

    • SIGNIFICANCE:
    • - a valid federal law must be rationally related to Congressional power OR necessary and proper to effectuate one of them
    • - if Congress legislates beyond its powers, its violating the 10th A

    • NOTES:
    • - there is NO federal police power
    • - ONLY STATES have police power
  22. What does the COMMERCE CLAUSE provide?
    Gives CONGRESS the right to regulate interstate and international commerce [which extends to virtually ANY activity]

    • Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3
    • grants CONGRESS the power to regulate Commerce w/ foreign Nations and among the several states

    • RATIONALE:
    • - to eliminate "economic balkanization" and trade barriers among the STATES so that a truly national economy is maintained

    • CC acts both as
    • 1) source of Congressional authority
    • 2) an implicit limitation on State power
  23. Since 1937 [start of the modern trend in SC CC analysis] Court has used 3 theories to expand the commerce power.
    • 1) Substantial Economic Effect:
    • NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp
    • As long as activity has a substantial economic effect upon interstate commerce, Congress may validly regulate that activity, even if it occurs long before OR after the actual interstate commerce occurs

    • 2) Cumulative Effect:
    • Wickard v. Filburn
    • Congress may regulate an entire class of activity if the class as a whole would have substantial economic effect, even if a single activity, taken alone, would NOT have interstate impact

    • 3) Commerce-Prohibiting Technique
    • US v. Darby
    • Congress may directly ban interstate transport of certain goods & services, as long as Congress has chosen a means reasonably related to a permitted end

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview