West/ConLaw1/Fall2012
CONSTITUTION
major purposes:
establishes national gov't, allocates power among branches
controls federal-state gov't relationship
limits power of gov't, protects individual rights
10th amendment: delegates power to states or people that are not explicitly reserved to US in constitution
article I, section I: vests legislative powers granted in constitution to congress
article VI: constitution is supreme law of the land; judges in every state bound regardless of state constitutions or laws
9th amendment: shouldn't construe enumeration of rights in constitution to deny/disparage rights that are not enumerated
13th amendment: only amendment that restricts private rights; every other amendment only restricts gov't
SEPARATION OF FEDERAL POWERS
judiciary's role
authority for judicial review: marbury v. madison
major holdings:
creates authority for judicial review of executive actions that involve individual rights and gov't duties
but only political process is check on judicial branch for discretionary acts
article 3 is ceiling of federal court jurisdiction and can't be expanded by congress
establishes judicial review of legislative acts
constitution is regulatory and has the power of law
judicial department has duty to say what the law is
justifications for judicial review: supremacy clause, legislative intent
constitution clearly says scotus has original jurisdiction in some cases and appellate in others; appellate implies that it revises and corrects lower court decisions; doesn't make sense then to say that legislature can apportion this duty as it wishes
constitution limits legislative power for a reason, so unless constitution is itself just another changeable law (and it's not), legislative act contrary to constitution is not good law
judicial duty to say what the law is; if law and constitution say two different things, court should determine which of conflicting rules applies (and constitution will always supersede)
government of laws and not of men; gov't must also follow the law; requires that violation of vested legal right has a remedy
determined by whether right has vested, which in turn is tried by judicial authority
judiciary act of 1789 unconstitutional in part b/c expands scotus original jurisdiction beyond what is listed in constitution
article III section 2 clause 2: scotus has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and where state is a party; in all other cases scotus has appellate jurisdiction w/ exceptions made by congress
congress can limit federal court jurisdiction but can't expand it
2 viewpoints: either congress has broad powers to remove matters from scotus' purview, or it can only restrict scotus' ability to review matters of fact (can't prevent them from reviewing matters of law)
constitutional interpretation
possible methods:
textualism: words in constitution to be interpreted in normal and ordinary (plain) meaning (non-technical)
originalism: constitution to be interpreted based on original meaning of the text (either framers' intent, public meaning, or both)
abstract originalism: follow framers' general intent (not specific intent)
nonoriginalism: can properly consider facts and events that occurred after ratification
traditionalism: ascertain and follow tradition, protect right only if there is tradition of social recognition and protection
process-based theory: court's primary role is to create fair process but it should leave substantive value choices to majority
aspirationalism: identify and define values regarded as so important as to be protected from the majority; can consider tradition, history, precedent, social needs, content of constitution's open-textured provisions
consequentialism: be conscious of political consequences of decisions
posner: constitution drafted in general terms; can create possibility of alternative interpretations; must exercise discretion and take into account consequences when interpreting constitutional text
considerations for interpretation: text, framers' intent, underlying concepts of constitution, contemporary public meaning, tradition, process vs. substance, public policy, precedent
prefatory clause:
majority (scalia): delineates purpose of an operative clause; doesn't expand or limit its scope
dis
e courts to exercise judicial power in a way forbidden by article III:
can't enforce statute that prescribes rules of decision to judicial department
can't vest review of decisions in executive branch officials
judgments are final; can't force courts to retroactively open cases that have been decided (plaut v. spendthrift farm)
declaratory judgments: binding adjudication of rights/status of litigants when P is in doubt as to legal rights
require actual controversy, adverse parties, binding judgment
standing
constitutional standing requirements:
injury: P must allege that he has suffered or will imminently suffer injury
injury must be actual or imminent
past injury (e.g. police applying chokehold) doesn't show present case/controversy to get injunction against future gov't conduct (e.g. police continuing to use chokeholds) unless it is accompanied by continuing, present adverse effects (city of LA v. lyons)
requires showing that P would have another encounter that results in injury and that encounter is part of broader gov't policy
cognizable interest (e.g. animals harmed overseas) not enough; requires injury in fact to P (lujan v. defenders of wildlife)
injury from environmental damage requires showing that P uses area affected
redistricting/gerrymandering can only be challenged by someone who lives in the district and is specially harmed (us v. hays)
requests for information being denied is sufficient harm for anyone who tries to request information to bring suit (FEC v. akins)
injury must be concrete and particularized (personal harm, not general interest in law compliance)
can't challenge gov't policies and programs w/o being able to point to specific violations of law that cause injury (allen v. wright)
