Constitutional Law I Outline

CONLAW OUTLINE RUSSELL ROBINSON FALL 2016
 
Exam Answer Structure:
 
Federal laws
Was the law validly enacted pursuant to an enumerated Congressional power?
Does the law violate DP and/or EPC?
 
State laws
               Does the law violate DP and/or EPC?
 
A.ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY/FUNCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION
 
(1) Establishes national government and allocates power among the branches
Article I: Congress (and the Commerce Clause)
Article II: Presidency (and executive power) – rarely examined by Court
Article III: Supreme Court and authorizes Congress to create lower courts
 (2) Controls relationship between the federal and state governments
Federal government was needed for certain matters (foreign affairs, immigration, currency, etc.), but otherwise framers wanted states to have most of the power
Federal government would be supreme in its domains (Supremacy Clause), but it would have limited domains (in practice, though it has not really turned out this way)
(3) Limit government power, thereby protecting the individual
Framers concerned listing specific rights would limit rights in the future so there are unenumerated rights (substantive due process)
As long as we are trying to define/protect unenumerated rights, there will be questions as to whether Court is consistent and/or imposing their own personal views
Bill of Rights: First ten Amendments applies to federal government
Applied to states through the 14th Amendment
With exception of 13th Amendment prohibiting slavery, rights held are against gov’t
Divided power to prevent tyranny and any individual/branch from monopolizing government, but divisions do make it more difficult to get things done
Certain biases are built into the system so it is harder to adopt social evolution
Constitution limits change by making it difficult to change government’s structure and people’s rights, but it also provides a framework for times of crisis
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B.Judicial Review
 
Limits on the Federal Judicial Power:
Judicial power to say what the law is gives judges a lot of power and authority
There has thus been an ongoing debate regarding how to constrain this power and what sorts of limits on judicial authority are sufficient
 
Marbury v. Madison (p. 1)
Court creates the power of judicial review. The court will review legislation and executive actions where there is a duty to perform. Court will not review those actions that are political.
Facts: On his last day in office, President John Adams appointed 42 justices. Some justices did not receive their commissions prior to Jefferson’s inauguration, including William Marbury. President Jefferson instructed Secretary of State James Madison to withhold the undelivered commissions. Marbury applied directly to SCOTUS for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver the commission so he can take his judgeship. The Judiciary Act of 1789 granted SCOTUS original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to any courts appointed, or persons holding office.
 
Issues & Holdings (Chief Justice Marshall): A law repugnant to the constitution is void, and courts, as well as other departments, are bound by it.
Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
Yes. The appointment was made when the president signed the commission; the commission is complete when the seal of the US has been affixed. Withholding the commission is an act not warranted by law, but in violation of a vested legal right.
 
Does the law grant Marbury a remedy?
Yes. All individuals have the right to claim protection of law whenever they receive an injury. Marbury had a legal right to office, thus a subsequent right to the commission. Refusal was a violation for which the law affords a remedy.
 
Does SCOTUS have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void?
Yes. SCOTUS has the duty to say what the law is, which requires interpretation. The Constitution must govern.
 
Does SCOTUS have original jurisdiction to writs of mandamus?
No.  Article III sets SCOTUS JX and Congress cannot expand SCOTUS’ authority beyond the Constitution
SCOTUS is bound to decide cases according to the Constitution rather than the law (i.e. The Judiciary Act) when the two conflict. So if a law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, then the law is invalid. The Judiciary Act ran counter to the Constitution and is therefore void
 
Notes/Discussion:
Marbury creates the authority for judicial review of executive actions.
“The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to enquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion.”
Political / discretionary acts à no review
Non-political / legal acts à judicial review
 
Marbury establishes the authority for judicial review of legislative acts because the Constitution requires an enforcer
Holds that Art III, Sec. 2 is the ceiling / maximum jurisdiction of federal court jurisdiction. Congress may not expand the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS by authorizing federal courts to hear cases beyond what is specified in Art III
The Judiciary Act was unconstitutional
 
However, SCOTUS cannot add to original JX à would make Constitution irrelevant. Marshall says:
It is the Supreme Court’s job to say what the law is, what the Constitution requires, including  striking  down  unconstitutional law
Justices swear an oath to uphold Constitution, but these are not the only people that take that oath – President does too
On one hand, judiciary is not accountable to public becasue not elected by them. No one reviews the Supreme Court. On the other hand, that can be positive, no election politics/pressure. Also court has no armed forces for enforcement.
Constitution is structured to assume that there will be political pressure to disobey the Constitution – tyranny of the majority, need to protect minority rights – giving Congress the right to review/interpret would be allowing them too much temptation since they are politically elected. Need for judicial check.
 
TAKEAWAYS:
The Constitution sets binding limits on govt
The Court may review legislative actions for their constitutionality
Congress cannot increase jurisdiction of federal courts
The Court may review executive conduct to determine its constitutionality so long as the challenged conduct is not political/discretionary in nature
 
Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989)   *Plurality Opinion*  ) (p. 948)
Court upholds law that presumes that the husband in a marriage is presumed to be the father of a child born, with limited chance for rebuttal.
Facts:
Carole à wife/mom, Victoria à daughter, Gerald à husband, Michael à affair partner
Carole and Gerald married. Carole has affair with Michael H. and they have a child, Victoria. Gerald is listed on the birth certificate. Carole lived with Michael for a while with Victoria, then she goes back to Gerald and also lives for a while with another man. For the majority of the time, Victoria spent more time with Gerald, but there was a small subset of time during which she spent time as Michael’s daughter with him. Both Michael and Gerald held Victoria out as their daughter. C stopped M from visiting, so M filed action and V joined.
Cal. Evid. Code §621 provides that the child of a wife cohabitating with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage. Presumption that if a married couple living together at time of conception and birth, child is considered to be that of the husband (unless impotent). Only husband or wife can file a motion rebutting this presumption (not Michael).