Midterm - Basic Overview PDF

Overview of the Constitution The Constitution provides the rules for making and changing the law Where there is a conflict between new law and the Constitution, the Constitution wins Purpose 1. Create a national government – of laws, not of men 2. Govern the relationship between federal and state go...

Overview of the Constitution The Constitution provides the rules for making and changing the law Where there is a conflict between new law and the Constitution, the Constitution wins Purpose 1. Create a national government – of laws, not of men 2. Govern the relationship between federal and state governments 3. Limit government power & protect personal rights Provides structure for how our government operates and divided it into a system with many powers reserved to the states and 3 Federal branches: (1) Legislative Has the power to make laws, declare wars, tax, and spend money (2) Executive Power to execute and enforce the laws passed by Legislative branch, appoint cabinet to carry out duties, and lead the armed forces (3) Judicial Read the text of the Constitution! Power to settle disputes and in cases of ambiguity, determine what the law is Key Concepts of Constitutional Law ◦ Separation of Powers: The division of a state's government into "branches", each with separate, independent powers and responsibilities, so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with those of the other branches ◦ Limited/Enumerated Powers: Powers granted to each branch of the government listed in specified Articles of Constitution ◦ Checks and Balances: A system that allows each branch of a government to amend or veto acts of another branch so as to prevent any one branch from having too much power. ◦ Lawmaking – House or Senate creates law, President can sign or veto ◦ Treaties – President negotiates, Congress ratifies with 2/3 vote ◦ War making – Congress declares war, President is Commander in Chief ◦ Federalism: A combined and compound mode of government that combines a general government with regional governments in a single political system, dividing the powers between the two ◦ Supremacy Clause – Federal Laws supersede state laws ◦ 10th Amendment – States have any rights not allocated to federal government The Federal Judicial Power 1. Article III sec. 1 - Creates SCOTUS and permits Congress to create inferior courts The Judiciary Act (1789) created and structured the judiciary into three-parts: (1) SCOTUS, (2) Circuit, and (3) The district courts. 2. Article III sec. 2 – Outline the kind of cases the judicial branch may hear ◦ Judicial power is limited/enumerated ◦ Original Jurisdiction ◦ Appellate jurisdiction ◦ Can only hear cases or controversies ◦ Rule: Judicial Review: Process by which SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of actions taken by federal and state officials ◦ Process of judicial review has created the body of reported decisions ◦ This process renders the constitution enforceable as law ◦ Marbury v. Madison is the case that establishes this doctrine Interpretive Techniques 1. Textual analysis: 4 corners of the document 2. Original Meaning: Text and contemporaneous practices 3. Original Intent/Originalism: Purpose of framers and ratifiers determined from the text, legislative history, and historical context 4. General Intent: Broad view of the framers’ intent 5. Tradition: Established practice and values 6. Precedent: Prior rulings 7. Natural Law: Values that predate/underly the written Constitution 8. Pragmatism: Considering modern consequences on current social and economic considerations 9. Foreign Law: Comparing to other countries’ decisions 10. Process-Based Theory: Guaranteeing fair and equitable government processes Marbury v. Madison Background ◦ Facts: Marbury didn’t get his official notice for his new job, requests a writ of mandamus from the Court to receive the notice. Marbury said writ was authorized by Judiciary Act of 1789. ◦ Mandamus: Court order to act ◦ Holding: SCOTUS says Marbury has a vested right to the commission, a writ would be an appropriate remedy, but Judiciary Act of 1789 found unconstitutional because it granted SCOTUS original jurisdiction over cases involving writs of mandamus, so it contradicts the express language of Art. III. ◦ Interpretation: Largely based on original intent of the constitution; Bases it on the language of Article III Marbury v. Madison Takeaways ◦ Takeaways: Most important: SCOTUS has the power to review laws and legislative acts to determine their constitutionality ◦ ◦ Federal courts may review legislative actions to determine constitutionality and executive branch (nonpolitical conduct) to determine its legality/constitutionality ◦ In other words, SCOTUS’s role is judicial review U.S. Gov must be based upon the rule of law ◦ ◦ SCOTUS is striking down a law even though it benefits them – setting a precedent to follow Constitution! ◦ U.S. Constitution is the law of the land – Creates a hierarchy of law and Constitution trumps all ◦ Congress cannot expand scope of SCOTUS's jurisdiction beyond what is in Art. 3 sec. II ◦ *Note, the court could have decided the opposite and expanded the kinds of cases they hear, but they made this determination Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee ◦ In addition to being able to review the constitutionality of actions taken by Congress, the federal courts may review conduct engaged by states, including state court judgements that raise constitutional issues ◦ Facts: VA Supreme Court upheld VA law permitting confiscation of land. Problem is that state law conflicted w/ federal treaty securing land to pre-Revolution owners. ◦ Takeaways: ◦ This case established judicial review for state court decisions – A state court can make a decision on whether their statute is constitutional, but that decision is reviewable by SCOTUS ◦ SCOTUS has appellate court jurisdiction over state cases when the subject matter of the case falls within the Art 3 grants. – Which includes treaties (this case) ◦ However, SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction if question is one of State Constitution LIMITS ON CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION We established what SCOTUS can hear, but there are limits Issues of Justiciability ◦ A form of restraint ensuring parties have full incentive to litigate based on constitutional and prudential concerns Ask yourself: Can the court actually hear this case? 1. Standing 2. Ripeness 3. Mootness 4. Political Questions 5. Advisory Opinions Standing ◦ Plaintiffs must satisfy ALL THREE elements of standing to satisfy the Art. III requirements that federal courts have jurisdiction only over “cases and controversies”. ◦ Ask: Is this the proper party to bring this matter to the Court? ◦ 3 Requirements: ◦ (1) Injury in Fact: ◦ Person must be able to assert an injury in fact, which requires: ◦ (1) Particularized injury: Injury which affects plaintiff in a personal way ◦ (2) Concrete injury: One that exists in fact ◦ (2) Causation: ◦ Must be causal connection between: (1) injury and (2) conduct complained of - traceable to defendant, not some independent third party ◦ (3) Redressability: ◦ Ask: Would a favorable ruling eliminate/lessen the harm? Standing Cases MASS V. EPA ◦ MA suing EPA to get them to enforce emissions regulations under Clean Air Act ◦ Holding: Yes. There’s standing. ◦ Injury – Sea levels rising and MA coastline receding ◦ Causation – Lack of regulation causes more CO2 resulting in rising oceans and loss of coast ◦ Redressability – The remedy granted would not solve the entire issue but will partially redress ◦ Takeaways: ◦ Very expansive view of standing! ◦ Allows element of redressability to be partially redressed – does not have to be fully LUJAN V. DEFENDERS ◦ Executive branch changed interpretation of Endangered Species Act (ESA) from extending to all foreign nations to only being applicable within the US and high seas. ◦ Analysis: ◦ Injury: Possibly seeing the animals in the future is too speculative (not concrete) ◦ Causation: Defendants before the Court have no ability to control whether the projects are built or not ◦ Redressability: Secretary can’t ensure ESA followed abroad. ◦ Holding: No standing – Does not meet requirements for Injury and Redressability