Constitutional Law
Joh
Spring 2016
Introduction
Emerged because of failure of Articles of Confederation
What is a Constitution?
System of overarching rules to set up the government
Foundational document that gives structure of the government
Fundamental and/or paramount law
Embodies fundamental principles that the citizenry believe in
Structure of Constitution
Art. 1: Legislative powers
Art. 2: Executive powers
Art. 3: Judiciary powers
Art. 4-7
Article 4: Interstate Relations
Article 5: Amendment
Article 6: National Government
Article 7: Ratification of Constitution
The relationship between federal gov. and state gov.
Federalism: not as obvious as separation of powers, ex: all legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a congress
State: how much power should states have?
The purpose of Constitution
Separate the rights
Clarify the relationship between federal and state
Limit the gov. power and protect individual’s right
Supreme Court Mechanics
Original jurisdiction
State sues another state
Government sues a state or a state sues a government
Can hear “all cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers, and Consuls”
Appellate Review
Federal Courts
State Supreme Court decisions involving federal questions
Congress can regulate
Petition for certiorari
Summary disposition
Per curium
Briefing, argument, opinion
Why is constitutional interpretation necessary?
Senators must be at least 30 and US citizens
Silent: judicial review vague: 8th Amendment could not have been anticipated: technology
Sources of Interpretation
Text of Constitution
Structure of Constitution
History and Tradition
Intent of Framers
Judicial Interpretation
Public Policy
Two basic approaches
Judicial power
Judicial review– Not in the constitution
The power to review the constitutionality of legislative and executive action–central power of court
Mechanics of the Supreme Court
Can review:
Original jx: one state against another or between states and the federal government
Cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, consuls
Request for review from federal appellate court and state supreme courts with federal issues
Will not review:
Decision is correct
Unimportant issue
Lacks jx over case
Case 1: Marbury v. Madison (1803): The role of the US Supreme Court is to interpret and review the law and the Constitution
Fact: Marbury files suit in the supreme court for a writ of mandamus, a petition to the court asking them to order a govn’t official to perform a duty, which was ordering new secretary of state, Madison, to deliver his commission for Justice of the Peace to him.
Issues:
Does Marbury have the right to the commission he wants
If he has a right, and that right has been violated, does the law provide him with a remedy?
Is a mandamus from the supreme court the correct remedy to which he is entitled
The Judiciary act of 1789 conflict with Art 3, sec 2 cl 2 that expands the supreme court's original jx in the case writs of mandamus, whether it is constitutional?
The judiciary act of 1789 is null and void
Where statute conflicts with federal constitution 2 possibilities:
Alter the Constitution
No – constitution is foundational and permanent, and a restricting document
Make statute null and void
The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the constitution (Marshall):
They have a special capacity/expertise
Judges swear an oath to uphold
Supremacy clause (art. 6) – constitution is the supreme law of the land
Does not answer the question of who checks the supreme court’s power
Federalist 78 (
ent of Framers: Art. 3 sec 1: Judicial power of the US shall be vested in one supreme ct. and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish
If there were no lower courts, then the supreme court would not be able to review anything (art 3 sec 2)
Practical consequences of accepting VA's claims
It is a matter of practicality to have federal law unifying us over state “sovereignty”
States were not completely sovereign to begin with because prescribed to follow the constitution
Historical understanding of supreme court review over state judgments
The constitution has presumed that state attachments, state prejudices, state jealousies, and state interests might sometimes obstruct, or control, or be supposed to obstruct or control, the regular administration of justice
Cooper v. Aaron (1958): Government officials and state legislatures are bound by the US Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution.
Facts: US Supreme Court ruled desegregation unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education, Arkansas state government said they aren’t bound by US Supreme Court decision in Brown; claimed they do not have to comply with Supreme Court rulings based on Supreme Court interpretation of Constitution
Rule: The Constitution of the supreme law of the land and Marbury established that the Supreme Court is supreme in interpretation of the laws of the Constitution. State legislatures are bound by the Constitution and thus the decisions of the US Supreme Court.
