rticle 6-Supremacy Clause
-Makes U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land-all other law has to be consistent with the federal constitution.
-This means any law, act of Congress, state common law, local law, all law must conform to the federal Constitution. This clause deems the Constitution paramount.
-If law is not consistent with the Constitution, it is unenforceable.
Constitution-3 main functions:
1) Establishment of the national government and establishment of the 3 federal branches (Articles 1,2,3)-sharing of governmental powers among the 3 branches.
Framers wanted to protect individual liberty by limiting the powers of the federal government and sharing of power among the branches.
2) Attempted to govern the relationship between the federal government and the state/local governments.
Federalism refers to the fact that the constitution contemplates 2 separate governments in the same geographic area (federal and state)
3) Proposed limitations on governmental powers-giving individual’s rights that are protected by the constitution.
-The constitution needs interpretation because it was intentionally drafted in a broad manner. Why was it drafted broadly?
1) So it would be meaningful to the public, if constitution was written with details, it would not be interesting and meaningful to people;
2) It was drafted this way so the Constitution would be flexible enough to be adaptable to the various problems that might arise from age to age.
Methods for interpreting the Constitution:
1) Textual Method
Look to the language of the constitution-beginning point (must define text)
Justices with this approach believe that they should look at the language of the Constitution. The language is technically a good starting point, but normally it does not answer the problem alone because the text consists of language and the language needs interpretation.
2) What did the framers intend?-Originalists
Need to figure out what the framers intended
BUT there is no clear evidence that framers themselves wanted their intent to govern the constitution
Who really are the framers? Proposers? Debaters? States that ratified?
3) Overall purpose of why something is in the constitution
Overall purpose might help us decide the issue
If we can find the goal it might help us in figuring how the specific issue should be resolved
4) Structural Analysis
Court doesn’t read part of the constitution in isolation, but rather in conjunction with the other parts of the constitution.
5) Fundamental Values
Is it deeply rooted in the history and traditions of the nation?
Controversial method because we don’t know whose values we are talking about
It’s also controversial b/c justices are not interpreting the constitution but using their own judgment and values
6) Pragmatic/Prudential Approach
Looks to the consequences of the courts decision
This method takes into account the result or impact of its decision on society, economy, etc.
To what extent do Supreme Court justices function in a manner different from legislative officials?
Puts the justices in the business of making policy decisions that legislative officials normally make
7) Doctrinal Method
Court can make use of doctrines and principles that have been developed in prior cases
Stare decisis
Major method that the court uses to interpret
In a very high percentage of constitutional cases that come before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court is not starting afresh
I. POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONMAKING
-Under the Constitution, what types of federal courts are authorized to decide what type of cases?
Article III, Section 1:
Judicial power can be vested in lower federal courts- lower federal courts don’t exist unless Congress establishes them and they only have powers given to them by congress.
The constitution itself creates the U.S. Supreme Court- no action by the Congress is necessary to establish the Supreme Court
PROF. QUESTION:
CAN CONGRESS CREATE A SECOND SUPREME COURT?
– BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE SUPREME COURT.
Article III, Section 2:
-What types of cases can federal courts hear?
1) Cases arising under federal law
2) Diversity cases
– Supreme Court can hear cases that are divided into 2 categories- original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction, but they mostly hear appellate jurisdiction cases.
-Original Jurisdiction over 2 types of cases:
1) Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls- intended to refer to them of foreign countries assigned to work in the U.S. but NOT U.S. ones assigned to work in foreign countries.
2) Cases in which he state is involved-limited to cases in which the dispute involves more than 2 states.
Marbury v. Madison
– Congress can’t expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, according to – Congress also can’t narrow it
– Constitution itself gives Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear those 2 types of cases
– Supreme Court has discretion to not exercise original jurisdiction even if it falls into one of those categories
-How do cases get to the Supreme Court?
Appellate cases- 1) From decisions from federal
the whole picture today the Supreme Court has the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, state and local legislation unconstitutional, whether the case comes from the federal court system or state court system, whether it is a civil case of a criminal case. This power of judicial review still exists
Anti-majoritarian- It means that in theory legislation comes about as a result of the democratic process. Voters vote for legislative representatives who then enact legislative policy, which in theory represents the majority will.
– If judicial review is anti-majoritarian, it means it is an un-democratic power—that’s not the same as saying a federal court functions the same way as the legislative body.
-This is one of the ways that the framers sought to distinguish the legislative from judicial branch.
A legislative body can decide to take up whatever policy it chooses at whatever time it chooses to do so. The choice of subject and timing is all lodged with the legislative body.
Unlike a legislative body which can initiate the policy making function, the federal courts are reactive bodies in that they react to controversies that come before the court. One of the limitations on the power of the federal court is that the federal courts can only decide actual cases or controversies. SO the federal courts have to wait until a concrete case or controversy is presented by the parties to it
Principles of Judicial Self-Restraint:
1) Federal courts should decide federal constitutional questions only as a matter of last resort. (only when necessary)- If a party puts 2 claims before the Supreme Court, it should only rule on claims that are necessary.
2) When the interpretation of a federal statute is at issue and is fairly debatable, the court should choose the interpretation that is most likely to sustain the constitutionality of the statute.
-The constitution says what the Supreme Court says it means
-All lower courts must abide by the decisional law of the Supreme Court
-Lower court judge can’t just decide he doesn’t like a law and not comply
-State and local officials are also obligated to comply with law
