CON LAW I
I. THE SUPREME COURT’S JX
a. Judicial Review
i. Lawrence v. Texas (2003): court strikes down TX law making homosexual sodomy illegal because substantive denial of due process under 14th (privacy rights); brings out issue of whether these issues should be decided by legislature, the individual, or the Supreme Court?
1. Scalia: court imposes moral values on the people of TX;
2. federalism concerns: what right does the S Court have to strike down law of state?
b. Original JX
i. Federal Judicial Power is set forth in Article III:
1. Section 1: judicial power of US shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and inferior courts as Congress may establish;
2. Section 2: jurisdiction:
a. [1]: lays out bases for federal JX (states versus states, diversity, arising under C;
b. [2]: Supreme court: has Original JX over cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, etc., cases where state is a party; in all other cases, has appellate JX, with such exceptions as congress shall make;
3. Marbury v. Madison (Marshall;1803): first time court strikes down legislation as being unconstitutional (Judiciary Act); confirms S Court as ultimate interpreter of Constitution; JA had granted to S Court authority to issue writs, thus expanding the JX of the court beyond that given in Article III, § 2; Constitution trumps statute if there is a conflict, and S Court is ultimate authority;
a. Constitutional Interpretation:
i. Article III limits JX of the court; grant of affirmative power, to hear certain cases, is exclusive: “exception” clause not meant to expand;
ii. Methods:
1. Textual: relies on text & language itself; have X authority, thus no more; purporting to rely on literal language; non-interpretive;
2. Intention of the Framers: implies: court had power to strike down legislation;
3. Structural argument re nature of relationship between different branches of gov.; doesn’t use here, but is another approach to interpreting the C;
c. Appellate JX & Judicial Interpretation
i. Appellate JX:
1. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (Storey;1816): land dispute; Treaty of Paris: in addition to debts, states would return any property belonging to B subject; C says: Treaties made under laws of US are law; wanted to make it clear that in making treaties law of land, were requiring state’s to comply with treaties to ensure British lands returned; VA courts refused; S Court holds Treaty of Paris is supreme law of land; VA Court argues S Court has no appe
lation from local prejudice;
ii. If each state gets to decide what constitution means, and no way of harmonizing, then have risk that some states impose risk on burdens on citizens from other states; Supreme Court is in a way directly accountable to us; part of having national gov. is to ensure no one state imposes burden on people of other states;
ii. Judicial Interpretation:
1. McCulloch v. Maryland (Marshall; 1819): interprets C as granting authority of federal government to establish national bank; MD not allowed to tax it;
a. Article I, § 8: authorizes Congress to tax, impose duties, pay debts, etc.;
i. [5]: to coin money, regulate the value of it;
ii. [7]: establish post offices
[12]: raise & support armies;
