Constitutional Law I Outline

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OUTLINE

Macias-Spring 2012

I. THE ROLE OF COURTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

CHAPTER 1: JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE

A. ORIGINS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. Marbury v. Madison-Establishing Judicial Review-

· Articles were weak and did not give Congress (unicameral) much authority over states. The states had to voluntarily submit to authority of National Government (which causes much tumult).

· Marbury v. Madison-

o Court first held that Marbury had right to the commission he had received because it was a vested legal right he was entitled to.

o Court further said mandamus relief was proper b/c the mandamus did not involve the office of the person to whom the writ was directed, rather it involved the nature of the thing to be done.

o Judiciary Act conferred power upon Court to issue writs of mandamus to any person holding office under authority of U.S.

§ However, Judiciary Act is giving Court power to issue mandamus (this is not appellate in nature); so Congress is extending Court’s original jurisdiction. Only Constitution may do so.

o Court has duty under Constitution to strike down any laws that conflict with it.

o Thus, Marbury has right to relief, but Court cannot give it to him in this action because it is brought under Act which unconstitutionally expands Court’s original jurisdiction.

· Arguments in Support of Judicial Review-

o Textual:

§ Words of Constitution become meaningless if not adhered to

§ Article III grants Courts power to hear cases “arising” under Constitution.

§ Supremacy clause

o Judges take oath to uphold Constitution

o Framers’ Intentions (i.e. Federalist papers)

2. Is the Judiciary the Exclusive Authority in Constitutional Interpretation-

· Cooper v. Aaron-

o Can states disregard Court’s interpretation of the Constitution? No, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Court’s interpretation is binding.

o Uniformity argument-Court ensures that Constitution and its principles are uniformly interpreted throughout nation.

B. THE POWER TO REVIEW STATE COURT JUDGEMNTS

· Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee-

· Could Congress give Sup Ct power to review the judgments of state courts on issues of federal law (under appellate jurisdiction)

o Yes. Court’s Article III appellate power arises from case at issue, not conferral by Congress. States are not a separate judicial sovereignty regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.

§ State argued that Virginia and US courts were of different sovereignties and thus different jurisdictions.

o Jurisdiction over all cases arising under…means “all” cases.

o Supremacy clause and need for uniformity of fed laws also dictate this decision.

C. THE ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS DOCTRINE

· 2 Prongs:

o State law has to be sufficiently adequate to resolve action

o Must be valid under state and federal constitutions

· Michigan v. Long-

· Could Sup Ct review state decision when the state decision rested on adequate and independent state grounds (involved Fourth Amendment question, but lower court also interpreted its own state constitution)

o If state court wants to rely on federal precedent without using it as binding precedent, it needs to make a clear statement to that effect to avoid federal review. If truly independent and adequate, Court will not review decision (if primarily based on state law)

o Case shows that you can have more rights granted under state constitutions, but states cannot give less rights than those guaranteed by Federal Constitution.

· Bush v. Gore

o Court basically reviews the FL Sup Cts interpretation of its own state constitution and rules that FL interpreted wrongly.

§ Says it did not give enough deference to the state legislature (who, pursuant to Art. II has Electoral powers).

o Dissent: Federal courts should defer to state high court’s interpretation of its own state constitution or laws.

D. THE UTILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

· Counter-Majoritarian Role-Court acts as a brake upon politically accountable branches of gov’t. – better equipped to decide whether legislation is constitutional

o Pro: Legislatures will manifest will of majority, which may be intolerant of politically and socially unpopular minorities

o Con: Judges are unelected any thus repudiate a representative democracy

· Avoiding Counter-Majoritarian Problem-Representation Reinforcement Theory:

o Says judicial review implements majority of will of earlier generations and eliminates barriers to democratic participation.

· Stability-Court gives a settled meaning to Constitution

· Entrenched Error-Argues against judicial review; says it is too difficult to correct mistaken decisions by the Court.

· Erosion of Constitutional Responsibility by the Political Branches-other branches lose sight of constitutional issues b/c they defer to the courts

E. METHODS OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

· Interpretivist-looks only to the text of the Constitution (however, most interpretevists are not this extreme, they will often look to some other form of guidance)

· Noninterpretivists-look at contemporar