CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OUTLINE
As of 5/12
I. WHAT’S C/WHY HAVE IT?
a) Lays out function and structure of gov’t
b) Experiment created by pragmatists
c) Framers not only didn’t trust people, also didn’t trust themselves
d) Basically not amendable (only 12 amendments in 200 yearsàneed 75% of states to amend)
II. JUDICIAL REVIEW
a) Authority of the court, the C, and Judicial Supremacy
b) Marbury v. Madison-(Marbury challenging power of legislative branch)
i) Historical background: battle between Federalists and Republicans (Fed president going out and Repub coming in); Jefferson didn’t accept commission for Marbury, so takes to Supreme Court (original Jx)ßunusual since Marshall deciding case in which intimately involved
ii) Three questions
(1) Has applicant right to commission?
(a) Yes-signed and sealed by President (Article II, Sec. 3-president has to fully execute law)
(2) If right and violated, remedy?
(a) Yes-everybody has to obey law when it’s duty that he’s obliged to perform (exceptions: not subject to law-political functions)
(3) Is remedy writ of mandamus?
(a) Although Judiciary Act gives Supreme Court authority, C prohibits it from having original Jx (Article III-limiting language for original Jx)ßsection 13 of Judiciary Act unC-al
iii) Arguments for judicial review
(1) Function of courtsàprovince and duty of judicial department to say what law is
(2) Article III, Section 2
(3) Judges required to take oath to uphold C
(4) Needs to have check on political branches of gov’tàsuggest C of little value if Congress given power to determine for itself whether own acts C-al/not
c) Federalist #78
i) Why court final arbiter of C?
(1) Since court weakest branch of gov’t (no influence over purse/sword), least dangerous
ii) Cooper v. Aaron-(Arkansas tried not to follow Brown v. Board of Ed)
(1) Even if not party to suit, still bound by decision
d) Power of Congress to Limit Supreme Court Jx
e) Ex Parte McCardle-(reporter arrested for article written in paper-seeks habeas corpus)
i) Appellate power given to Supreme Court by C, BUT subject to regulations of Congressà1867 amendment to Judiciary Act which gives Sup Ct power to hear appeals of habeas corpus BUT Congress repeals act in 1868 so that Sup Ct no longer has authority to hear habeas appeals
ii) Court refuses to acknowledge political nature of repeal-some say case stands for proposition that Congress can restrict form of Sup Ct’s Jx BUT has to provide court sufficient Jx somewhere in federal judiciary to allow courts to fulfill vital C-al judgment
iii) Article I, Sec. 9, cl. 2: language in C that implies that writ of habeas corpus has to be available to citizens
f) Ex Parte Yerger-( newspaper editor arrested for challenging Reconstruction Acts)
(1) P asked by writ of certiorari to Sup Ct-demonstrated that other ways to get to Sup Ct
(2) Can’t take away original Jx of court for habeas corpus so gov’t dismissed all claims
g) McArdle and Yerger: Two Conflicting Views-Area Left Unclear
i) No practical limitation on Congress’ ability to cut back Sup Court’s appellate Jx
(1) Some say only C-al restraint on Congress’ Jx stripping power
(a) Congress can’t constitute explicit prohibition to hear certain cases
t relies on federal marshals, who work for President, to enforce judgments)
vi) Amendment process to change C itself
III. SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF STATE COURT DECISIONS
a) Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee-(land dispute, relative of British loyalist v. Virginia)
i) Holding: Virginia law subordinate to US Supreme LawßVirginia disagrees using idea of dual sovereignties
(1) necessity of uniformity of decisions throughout US; state courts can’t be fully trusted
ii) Independent and adequate state grounds doctrine: where case decided on both state and federal C-al grounds, court can’t take case as long as there’s independent and adequate state grounds for decision; court shouldn’t issue advisory opinions
b) Michigan v. Long-(Terry search-not clear if Michigan court ruled under state law or federal law)
i) If case ambiguous, court assume based on federal law unless opinion contains plain statement that whenever referring to federal info only there for guidance
ii) Does this further goals of adequate and independent state ground rule doctrine? What are goals?
(1) Respect for independent state courts (doesn’t do this)
Avoidance of rendering advisory opinions (if treat ambiguous case as if grounded in federal law, increase likelihood that rendering advisory opinions-DOESN’T MAKE SENSE)
