Constitutional Law
Purpose and Bylaws of the Constitution/ OVERVIEW
3 Powers and Functions of The Constitution
It creates/ distributes and limits the powers of government
Establishes a relationship between the federal government and all the state governments.
Conflicts occur between the federal and state governments.
It assigns duties to different branches of government, and distributes the power between government and states
Establishes and distributes power among the 3 branches of the federal government. (Legislative/Congress, Executive/President, and Judicial/Court)
It limits the power of government and protects individual rights.
I. THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER
a. The Authority of Judicial Review
i. Article III section 2 vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress may establish jurisdiction limited to “cases and controversies.” Marbury v. Madison held that the Supreme Court may determine the constitutionality of acts of other branches of government, while Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee held that federal courts may review state court decisions.
b. Limits on the Federal Judicial Power
i. Interpretive limits
1. Originalism –it is the Supreme Courts responsibly to review the constitution and interpret what the framers of the constitution intended.
a. Positives
i. The document is concrete and you do not need anything else to help interpret.
ii. It is a more conservative approach and judicial review will only occur when necessary.
iii. Predictable and Uniform
iv. Preserves national identity – Foundational
b. Negatives
i. There are divided opinions about what original interpretation means.
1. Contextualist Originalists – say you can only look at the four corner document itself.
2. Historical Originalists – say you can look beyond just the constitution to items such as the federalist papers.
ii. There may be no original intent of the framers in certain situations.
iii. Even if you embrace the historical approach there was still political motivation.
iv. The framers were rich upper class white men who were not thinking about minorities or women.
v. Why should the framers control the next generation of people.
2. Non-Orginalism – interprets the intent of the framers and how the framers intent would apply to modern time.
a. Positives
i. Looks at the original intent of the constitution but is more flexible.
b. Negatives
i. Unpredictable and Uniform
ii. It is difficult to determine what the framers of the constitution would want now.
ii. Justicability Doctrines
1. Over the years, the Supreme Court has developed five justiciability doctrines which determine the matters federal courts can hear and decide and which must be dismissed. These doctrines are based on the Court’s interpretation of “cases and controversies” in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The five justiciability doctrines are standing, the prohibition against advisory opinions, ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine. Neither the text of the Constitution, nor the framers in drafting the document, expressly mentioned any of these limitations on the judicial power.
a. The Justiciability doctrines tend to overlap.
i. Standing, Advisory Opinion, Ripeness
ii. Standing, Advisory Opinion, Mootness
iii. Standing, Advisory Opinion, Political Question Doctrine.
2. Standing (Standing is usually checked at the beginning of the case).
a. Definition: – standing is the determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication. A party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right.
b. Rule: Federal courts may adjudicate claims only if brought by the proper party or parties.
i. Parties must show :
1. The plaintiff suffered an injury in fact;
a. which is concrete and particularized and either actual or
i. You can not sue for an ideological harm such as being opposed to racist remarks. The plaintiff must prove he or she was subjected to actual injury.
ii. Usually economic
b. imminent injury
i. Luhan Case – The court said that injury was not imminent to the person who wanted to see threatened wild life one day. Maybe if she had a plane ticket ready to go sooner the court would have held that the injury was imminent.
2. The injury is fairly traceable to the defendants conduct.
3. The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision by the plaintiff.
a. For standing to apply to injunctive relief you have to sho
ate claims where a cognizable injury once existed but some intervening event has eradicated the injury.
c. Exceptions
i. The capability of repetition, yet evading review exception.
1. If the case could be brought to the court again and could keep creeping past judicial review, the court will review the case, however, it must be repeatable for the same plaintiff.
a. Pregnancy is the classic example of evading review. She could have been pregnant again.
ii. Voluntary cessation of illegal /unconstitutional conduct.
1. When a person voluntarily stops the conduct which they are not suppose to be doing and can easily start again. .
2. It puts the mootness of the case in the hands of the defendant, which can allow a defendant to continually avoid the policy matter
iii. Class Action Suits
1. If you have a case certified as a class action case then it will not be moot even if the injury of the named plaintiff is eradicated.
iv. Collateral Consequences
1. After the removal of the immediate injury there continues to be collateral consequences.
a. So long as the plaintiff continues to suffer some harm that a favorable court decision could remedy the case is not moot.
6. Political Question Doctrine (refers to the separation of powers within the government – Chen said you would see this doctrine clearly if it is on the test-Example: foreign affairs).
a. Definition: It is a structurally based doctrine where the court will refuse to take cases that they believe are inappropriate for judicial review even if all other justiceabiltiy doctrines are met.
b. Rule: The Supreme Court has held that certain allegations of unconstitutional government conduct should not e ruled on by the federal courts even though all of the jurisdictional and other justifiability requirements are met. The Court has said that constitutional interpretation in these areas should be left ot the politically accountable branches of government, the president and Congress.
c. Examples
i. When there are functions committed to certain branches of the government.
ii. In situations where a court decision will cause a great deal of embarrassment or confusion as to what the official U.S. decision is.
