Torres-Spelliscy
Constitutional Law
Spring 2016
Stare Decisis: To stand by things decided, legal precedent, sitting court respects its own precedent in order to stay faithful to their decisions
Judicial Review
Constitution is silent on judicial review- judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution. Judicial review is asserted by the Court by Marbury v. Madison and has been used by the Court ever since then.
Supreme Ct can review acts of congress and deem them unconstitutional
Supreme Ct can review State cts as well, can rule on federal statutes/treaties conflicting with state law.
Supreme Ct rarely reverse State Supreme Cts on State law. State Supreme Cts USUALLY get last word on what the state law is.
Separation of Powers
Separation of Powers (checks & balances): Art 1 gives congress power; Art 2 gives president power; Art 3 gives judicial powers
Marbury v. Madison (1803)- Marbury was appointed and nominated Justice of the Peace by President Adams. The commission was signed and sealed, but it was not delivered when President Jefferson took office. Jefferson ordered Madison not to deliver commission. Marbury sought writ of mandamus.
Writ of Mandamus: order from a court to inferior government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1.
Judiciary Act of 1789: gives Supreme Court power to order writ of mandamus. Constitutional? Did Congress have right to enact?
Judiciary Act of 1789 broadens Supreme Court powers. In conflict with Constitution. Look to Article 6: Constitution trumps laws that conflict with Constitution.
Marshall strikes down measure that gave court power to issue writ of mandamus- limiting Supreme Court powers (give. through Judiciary Act)
Supreme Court has constitutional authority to review executive actions and legislative acts. The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, the bounds of which are set by the United States Constitution, which may not be enlarged by the Congress
If Supreme Ct identifies a conflict b/w a constitutional provision and a congressional statute, the Court has the authority (and duty) to declare the statute unconstitutional and to refuse to enforce it
Central holding: it is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is
This decision strengthens our democratic process by ensuring checks and balances & weakens it by not allowing Congress to broaden the Supreme Courts powers.
Martin v. Hunters Lessee (1816)- Conflict of State Law & Federal Law- Article 6, Clause 2- Conflict of State Law & Treaty; the Treaty prevails. Goes to Supreme Court who says treaty prevails, Virginia says Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction, goes back to Supreme Court and they say they can review state decision. Important for Supreme Court to have final say on treaty; states would be biased; confusing for other countries; applied uniformly.
Established Supreme Court's authority to review constitutionality of state and local government officials
Supreme Court gets the power of judicial review, but it can be regulated by Congress
The federal court is better at interpreting federal law than state judges because it helps eliminate bias for state interests
Treaties are meant to be with US and foreign government, and if the government doesn’t have final say, then there would be a threat that the states could undermine the treaty
When a State Supreme Ct makes a ruling on state law, then the US Supreme Ct will almost never address the decision due to state sovereignty because the people of the state most likely know better
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: “in all other cases before mentioned the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction” – demonstrates a textual commitment to allow Supreme Court review of state decisions
Supreme Court concluded that the decision by the Virginia court of appeals was in error
Treaties are meant to be with the United States and foreign government and if the government did not have the final say, then there would be a threat that the states could undermine the language that that was agreed to by the foreign government
Supreme Court can also review state courts as well when they are ruling on a question of law
But generally they leave it to the State Supreme Court to have final say
US v. Progressive, Inc (1979)- Progressive wrote article about the H-Bomb. U.S. says info is classified. Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Press. Danger of publication= national security; readers would see information all together rather than researching available sources. Opinion: dangers trumps freedom of the press. Must weigh freedom of press/national security.
The Limits of Textualism and “Case or Controversy Requirement”
In evaluating the constitutionality of any act of Congress, there are two questions
1. Does Congress have the authority under the Constitution to legislate?
This requires defining the scope of the powers granted to Congress, particularly in Art. I Sec. 8
2. If so, does the law violate another constitutional provision or doctrine, such as by infringing separation of powers or interfering with individual liberties?
The Court protect state sovereignty – concluding that even valid exercises of legislative power are unconstitutional when they violate state’s rights
The Court uses the 10th Amendment as the basis for this protection of state governments from federal encroachment
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)- Does Congress have the power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank, even though that power is not specifically enumerated within the Constitution? Does the State of Maryland have the power to tax an institution created by Congress pursuant to its powers under the Constitution? Congress has power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank pursuant to the Necessary and Proper clause (Elastic Clause- Article I, section 8, clause 18). The State of Maryland does not have the power to tax an institution created by Congress pursuant to its powers under the Constitution. The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that Congress had the right to create the bank. The Constitution is supreme over state laws, the states cannot apply taxes, which would in effect destroy federal legislative law.
The federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power
The state lost the ability to tax corporations that are in their midst
The enumerated powers are silent on creating banks and corporations
Maryland tried asserting their right under the 10th Amendment, where things not given to the federal government are to be given to the state
The United States combatted this with the elastic clause
The McCulloch test
1. One asks whether the means used are “convenient” or “useful” to reaching the ends
2. The means used must not be prohibited by the Constitution
3. Determine whether what Congress has done is a pretext for some inappropriate action
à Congress may use any means that are convenient or useful to reach a legitimate end, so long as those means are not prohibited in the Constitution or a mere pretext to accomplish something that Congress would not otherwise have the power to do.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)- Handgun possession is banned under District of Columbia (D) law. The law prohibits the registration of handguns and makes it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. What rights are protected by the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment protects an individual r
reapportionment of districts for congressional representation
Baker v. Carr (1962)- Baker filed suit against Joe Carr, the Secretary of State of Tennessee. Baker’s complaint alleged that the Tennessee legislature had not redrawn its legislative districts since 1901, in violation of the Tennessee State Constitution which required redistricting according to the federal census every 10 years. Baker, who lived in an urban part of the state, asserted that the demographics of the state had changed shifting a greater proportion of the population to the cities, thereby diluting his vote in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is justiciable (a court can hear this case). Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to a legislative apportionment.
As a voter, you want to be in a underpopulated district. Your vote counts more.
Before this case, courts would not touch redistricting cases. Able to hear it under the Equal Protection Clause. Opened doors to future claims under 14th amendment.
Still will not hear questions under Guaranty clause
Rural votes who were a numerical minority controlled a majority of the seats of both houses of the Tennessee state legislatures
A political question is essentially a function of the separation of powers. It is apparent that several formulations which vary slightly according to the settings in which the questions arise may describe a political question, although each has one or more elements which identify it as:
a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (like foreign affairs and executive war powers)
If the text of the constitution gives a power to another branch, it is a non-justiciable matter.
a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it
the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion
the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government
an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made
the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.
Avoidance: When a court is reviewing a statute, if there is more than one plausible interpretation of a statute, the court will give that statute the plausible meaning in order to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the statute. (If one interpretation will allow statute to remain constitutional, court will take constitutional reading of statute rather than ruling on constitutionality of statute). Avoid reading of statute that would render statute unconstitutional.
Why would court avoid this? Fruitful Dialogue Explanation: giving Congress second bite at the apple to fix parts of the statute. The court will send warning signs to Congress that there are problems with statute. Congress should explain/fix parts or it may be rendered unconstitutional. If they see the problem again after warning Congress, they may rule against it.
