Constitutional Law Carlson Spring 2015
Chapter one: Introduction
Three important fundamental principles:
· Separation of powers, which governs relations among the branches of government
· Federalism, which governs relations between the states and the national government
· Individual rights and liberties, which governs relations between the government and the people
Chapter two: The Judicial Power
Power of Judicial Review
Marbury v. Madison
Note: when executive official acts are judicially reviewable?
Where an executive official acts in an area where the president has “constitutional or legal discretion” the acts is political and not subject to the judicial scrutiny;
Where law assigns the executive a duty on which “individual rights depend” an individual who suffers injury from the breach of duty has a legal remedy in court.
Where the subject of the act is about the entire nation instead of individual, the executive branch would have the discretion under constitution.
Note: Why the court could declare federal acts is unconstitutional?
Justice Marshall gave several reasons:
1.He argued that the Constitution imposes limits on government powers and that these limits are meaningless unless subject to judicial enforcement. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.”
2. Marshall argues that it is inherent in the judicial role to decide the constitutionality of the laws that it applies. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
3. He then argued that the Court’s authority to decide cases arising under the Constitution implied the power to declare unconstitutional laws conflicting with the original charter.
4. He also defended judicial review on the ground that judges take an oath of office and that they would violate this oath if they enforced unconstitutional laws.
Takeaway: The constitution is paramount law, and the Court has the power of judicial review in cases before it, to examine whether or not a legislative act is consistent with the Constitution.
Martin v. Hunter’s
Note: Supreme Court has jurisdiction over state court’s decision when it relate to questions of federal law.
Reasons:
One: The Constitution extended judicial power and the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction to “all cases arising under the laws of the United States and treaties”
Two: Supreme Court review of the state court decisions was a prerequisite to the survival of an effective written constitution in a federation. Absent such review, state court decisions might infringe critical national interests and jeopardize the supremacy of federal law.
Three: “the mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national law”
Cooper v. Aaron
Holding: The Court reassert the authority of the federal judiciary and the obligation of state officials to support the Constitution.
Note: The federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution. Article IV of the Constitution makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land. Under Marbury, it is for the judicial branch to decide what the law is and SC rulings become the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause.
Checks (constrains) on Judicial Review
Note: Three major constrains
· Court must have authority to hear the case
· The case must be appropriate for judicial resolution (political question doctrine)
· The appropriate party must bring the case (standing)
A. Legislative Checks
Ex Parte McCardle
Note: -Congress may repeal a grant of appellate jurisdiction to the SC because Congress is given the power in the Constitution to make exceptions and regulations to appellate jurisdiction.
-Congress has the power to define the judicial power of the US, and they can change the kind of appellate jurisdiction the SC has.
Note: How far can congress go when applying the power?
Marbury case: Congressional power must be exercised consistently with the constitution, and a legislative act contrary to the constitution is void.
Takeaway: Congress can limit court’s appella
d party.
c. Redressibility-it must be likely, not merely speculative that injury will be redressed by a favorable decision of court.
Justice Steven dissent – imminence of such an injury should start when the harm occurs not when the P suffers the harm in the future
Note: Besides constitutional requirement for standing, court sometimes imposed Prudential Standing Requirements on itself.
a. Rights of Others
When suit challenging the legality of government action, the extend and nature of fact that must be proved to establish standing depends on whether the plaintiff is himself an object of the action at issue
– If he is, injury can be proved easily, and judgment of requiring or preventing will redress the injury.
– If he is not, much more is needed to prove the asserted injury due to government’s action or inaction. For example, court will recognize the standing if the litigant has a close relationship with the person whose right he seeks to asserted.
b. Generalized Grievance
To disqualify standing because of generalized grievance, the harm must be not only widely shared, but is also abstract and indefinite.
Note: Taxpayer Standing
Flast v. Cohen – person may challenge federal government expenditure as a taxpayer
-Plaintiff needs to establish that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power.
-If plaintiff can establish a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated, which assures that the plaintiff is a proper and appropriate party to invoke federal jurisdiction.
-Not enough just show that the tax was beyond the powers of congress
