The Role of Courts in Constitutional Interpretation: Judicial Review and Constitution Structure
Marbury v. Madison
· It is the courts role to say what the constitution means. (dispute b/w Marshall and Jefferson)
· Marbury is justice of the peace. Madison is secretary of state. Adam’s appointed Marbury. Appointment was sent to Marshall. Marshall never delivered the signed and sealed commission. Jefferson says he wont appoint Marbury.
· Test:
o Does Marbury have a right to the commission he demands?
§ Yes, b/c as soon as it was signed and sealed, he had a right.
o If he has a right, and the right has been violated, do the laws of this country afford him a remedy?
§ Yes. If there is a right, there must be a remedy. (the court can order a writ of mandamus for it to be delivered)
o If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?
§ No. Conflicts with Section 13 of the Judiciary Act.
· Article III (2) of the Constitution discusses the jurisdiction of the SCT. They have original jurisdiction for 3 things. Congress ordered a 4th under section 13. Marshall says that 13 is unconstitutional b/c if the constitution is supreme, then they get judicial review of all laws.
o This case establishes the courts get the last word. If Marbury got the commission, the courts would lose their power.
o Now courts get to review all ministerial decisions. Jefferson cant appeal b/c he won.
o The SCT doesn’t strike down another law for 50 years. Marshall created this great power, but was hesitant to use it. By the time it is used again, there is an entire new generation and so it is not questioned.
o Marbury never re-files in the proper court which makes the entire thing seem as a plot.
o There are two types of Executive Action
o Discretionary: power to chose who is the new justice
o Ministerial: commission must be signed and delivered. (Marshall says the court can only review ministerial)
o Constitution is nonaspirational (binding)
o Article III sets ceiling for what the judiciary can review (cant add more items)
Cooper v. Aaron
· Arkansas says they cant be bound by Brown v. Board of Education b/c they weren’t a party.
o Court says the word is binding on all governments. The only way to get around it is to amend the constitution. Court binds all other branches.
· Federal judges have powerful independence b/c they are appointed for life.
· The other branches aren’t taken out of interpretation of the constitution.
o President cannot validly act against a SCT decision.
o President cannot go below the floor set by the SCT
§ This is the only way the other branches can get around SCT decisions
o President does not have to approve a bill if they don’t want to.
· What should the court look at when trying to interpret the Constitution?
o Society’s norms and morals
o Framer’s intent (historical evidence)
o Ratifier’s intent
o Actual language
o Structural issues
o Tradition
o International Law
Martin v. Hunter’s Lesse
· F owns VA land. VA gives it to Virginians. F gives land to Martin. VA court rules that giving the land did not violate the Treaty of Paris. SCT reversed b/c treaties are the supreme law and deeding the land is in violation. VA refuses to conform.
o Treaties are the Supreme law of the land.
o Interpretation of Treaties falls under Federal courts jurisdiction, therefore the SCT has jurisdiction.
· SCT has the power to review State court decisions regarding matters of the constitutionality of the holding.
o Two reasons for this power
§ Supremacy Clause (federal law must be supreme)
§ Need for uniformity
· This case gives SCT power to review state court decisions if there is a matter of federal law.
Judicial Review and Constitution Structure: Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine
Adequate and Independent State Grounds Doctrine
· S
Things that are always Political Questions
o Disputes concerning whether amendments to the constitution have been validly adopted.
o It is up to Congress and the President to decide that the states are guaranteed a republican government.
o The closer you get to foreign affairs, the more likely it is a political question.
· In Carr, there is not political question b/c it deals w/ TN and not Congress and the President.
· The court decides if there is a political question (therefore retaining all the power)
Nixon v. United States
· Nixon is convicted of making false statements before a federal grand jury. Nixon said that the full committee of the Senate did not hear the trial, therefore the trial and impeachment are invalid.
o Nixon loses
§ Baker v. Carr gives the Senate the sole power to review.
§ Justice White
· Says the Senate doesn’t get sole power but the Senate is protected from interruption by the House (House votes to impeach and the Senate removes). Says the court cannot police the decisions.
· Says the judiciary has the last word
§ Justice Rehnquist
· Says the word “try” is too vague to apply a concrete meaning.
§ Justice Souter
· Court should have power over Senate if the Senate acts out of own authority. If really unconstitutional, the court should step in.
· Political Question Doctrine will only have an impact if there is nothing the court can do about it.
· Look at the text of the constitution, who has the power
· Look at the words and ask if they are too undefined to apply.