Constitutional Law Outline
Separation of Federal Powers
The Authority for Judicial Review
The authority for judicial review was first announced in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
A writ of mandamus is a petition to a court asking it to order a government official to perform a duty.
Marbury v. Madison:
The Supreme Court ruled that although the judiciary act of 1789 gave them original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus the provision of the statute was unconstitutional because Congress cannot allow original jurisdiction beyond the situations enumerated in the constitution.
Article 3 Section 2.2 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party.
Creates the authority for judicial review of executive actions
Establishes that article 3 is the ceiling of federal court jurisdiction
Establishes the authority for judicial review of legislative acts
Judicial review of state judgments:
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee: State attachments, state jealousies, and state interests might obstruct or control or be supposed to obstruct or control the regular administration of justice.
Cohens v. Virginia: State courts often cannot be trusted to adequately protect federal rights because in many states the judges are dependent upon the will of legislature for office and salary.
Limits on the Federal Judicial Power
Congressional limits refer to the ability of congress to restrict federal court jurisdiction. Justiciability limits refer to a series of judicially created doctrines that limit the types of matters that federal courts can decide.
Interpretive Limits:
Originalists: It is essential that the court’s discretion in interpreting the Constitution be narrowly circumscribed to limit the judicial power. This is a desirable way to limit unelected judges in a democratic society. Judges deciding constitutional issues should confine themselves to enforcing norms that are stated or clearly implicit in the written constitution. The constitution should evolve only by amendment.
Non-originalists: It is desirable for the Court to have substantial discretion in determining the meaning of the constitution. It is important that the constitution evolve by interpretation and not only by amendment. Courts should go beyond the set of
rent presidential power, the ability of congress to expand presidential powers, the constitutional problems posed by administrative agencies, the allocation of decision-making authority in the foreign policy area, executive power and the war on terrorism, and checks on the executive including civil suits for money damages and impeachment.
Inherent Presidential Powers
Alexander Hamilton: The president has authority not specifically delineated in the Constitution, because the constitution does not limit the President to powers herein granted.
James Madison: The president has no powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution and such unenumerated authority would be inconsistent with a constitution creating a government of limited authority.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer:
The President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.
The lawmaking power is entrusted to Congress.
