Con Law I Beery Spring 2017
-Constitutional Rules don’t apply to individuals; They apply to the government.
-Elements- something you need
-Factors – balancing; things to be considered
JUDICIAL BRANCH- ARTICLE 3
Judicial Review
Any federal judge has authority to strike down an act of Congress, President or the States if they are unconstitutional or contradict the Constitution.
Marbury v. Madison- 1st/ landmark case in which SCOTUS formed the basis for the exercise
of judicial review. Marbury filed suit in Supreme Crt to get writ of mandamus issued
against Madison. Conflict b/w constitution and statute re: where to file writ. Crt
dismissed due to lack of original jurisdiction.
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
When does the Supreme Crt have original jurisdiction?
● all cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, and
in cases to which a state is a party.
● for all other cases SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction
● if the Statute is Consistent with the Constitution- SCOTUS only has appellate
jurisdiction.
● SCOTUS only hears federal issues
Supremacy Clause
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
When SCOTUS decides a federal question, all state actors are bound by that decision
Treaties trump Statutes
Federal law trumps State law
ONLY SCOTUS has Judicial Supremacy: SCOTUS is the final arbiter; their decision
binds all state actors- even the dog catcher.
-If State doesn’t comply with SCOTUS ruling- show cause hearing will be
set.
Cooper v. Aaron- post Brown v. Board of Edu… Segregation is unconstitutional. Governor of
Arkansas says that they weren’t named party to (Brown) case, so the opinion of that case does not bind Arkansas- therefore going to continue to segregate. WRONG- per Supremacy Clause- what SCOTUS says goes.
Martin v. Hunters Lessee- Treaty with Great Britain at the end of the Revolutionary War
promised that any property seized would be returned. Hunter (U.S.) now occupying Martin (G.B) land. Martin wants his land back. Virginia crt says statute says the land stays with Hunter. Martin appeals. SCOTUS says Treaty trumps Statute and reverses – so Martin gets his land back and appeals VA SC decision. Va SC says that they
The scope of Federal Court power is VERY BROAD.
-They limit themselves to: -keep other branches happy
-reduce their dockets
-issues the Crt doesn’t want to deal with
Political Question Doctrine- the limit on exercise of judicial power.
SCOTUS won’t hear/will dismiss the case is they fall under any of the below categories:
1. Textually committed to coordinate branch of government.
The text of the Constitution itself gives this question to one of the other branches.
Does it belong to the Senate, 2 Houses or President?
2. Lacks judicially discoverable or manageable standards.
It’s a rule that can’t be answered or managed by the Court.
It’s a question alright, but is it a LEGAL question?
3. It would be imprudent for the Court to address the question.
-Rendering decision would cause embarrassment if Crt were to issue a pronouncement on
the issue.
-Crt shouldn’t issue an order if it’s going to cause a mess.
The following fall under Political Question Doctrine and will be bunted by SCOTUS:
● impeachment
● military rules of engagement
● amending the Constitution
● partisan gerrymandering
● Guarantee Clause
Gilligan v. Kent State (use of military force on civilians)- how much force is too much? S.C.
said not justiciable- not our branch- military is executive/legislative branch.
Nixon v. U.S. (impeachment)- Nixon impeached via a summary- not by hearing.- SCOTUS says
they cant hear it- Congress deals with impeachments.
Coleman v. Miller (Amending the Constitution) – states 1st said no – then changed their mind.
How much time is allowed to make up your mind- crt said- not justiciable- for Congress
to decide.
Vieth v. Jubeliner (Gerrymandering)- tried to get Republicans & Democrats situated
geographically so they could get more seat- S.C said- nope- not justiciable
Pacific States Telephone v. Oregon (Guarantee Clause)- U.S. guarantees to every State a
Republican form of govt. when it comes to legal challenges to Guarantee Clause- Crts
dismiss as political question.
Goldwater v. Carter (imprudent)- Carter in an attempt to work with China annuls Mutual
Defense Treaty with Taiwan. Goldwater says- Carter can’t annul Treaty w/o Congress approval.- SCOTUS says- it’s imprudent to opine on this matter.- they are not going to want get involved in fight b/w Legislative & Executive branch.
How Congress regulates/limits Judicial power
-Congress has authority over lower courts- can create/destroy them
-Only court recognized by the Constitution is SCOTUS.
-Congress regulates Fed crt appellate and original jurisdiction
-The Judiciary Act of 1789- Congress can create lower Federal Crts and regulates their
jurisdiction
-If Congress wants to mess with federal crt power it can do so by limiting their jurisdiction.
-Congress is allowed to regulate SCOUTS Appellate jurisdiction, but not SCOTUS Original
Jurisdiction (the court where the lawsuit is initiated)
-Congress can regulate SCOTUS as long as SCOTUS has not issued an opinion.
1. Congress can stop SCOTUS from making FUTURE decisions; but not overrule PRIOR
decisions. .. ie- you aren’t allowed to use your stripping power to overrule past cases.
2. Congress call tell SCOTUS NOT to hear a case; buy not HOW to decide a case.
ie- you don’t get to tell us how to rule cases.
Exparte McCardle- McCardle racist newspaper in the South during Reconstruction Period. Congress passed Reconstruction laws. McCardle agitates and raises a 1st Amendment issue- SCOTUS makes a mistake by granting cert. to hear this case re constitutionality of reconstruction laws; stating reconstruction violated Constitution. Crts don’t want ot interfere with what’s going on. This is one of the few times SCOTUS breached silence. Congress gets wind and rescinds SCOTUS jurisdiction after they had already heard oral argument and had voted, but before their decision was announced. SCOTUS allowed Congress to take away their decision before their opinion was written out.
U.S. v. Klein- post civil war time- one of the rules was that if you were in the South and had your property confiscated, but could prove you were loyal to the Union, you could get your property back. Klein had a pardon from the President, which should be conclusive proof/evidence
not a ceiling.
-Federal Court Order with no Stay, immediately binds the parties.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH- ARTICLE 1
Congress wants to regulate what we do and how we do it.
There are limits of what Congress can do and it’s the federal courts who set up that limit.
-If Constitution says Congress gets to do it- Courts have nothing to say about it.
-With regard to any enumerated power- Congress’ power is plenary (absolute).
2 houses of Congress- Bicameral
-House of Representatives (475 members)
-Senate (100 members- 2 per state)
-Bill only becomes law at presentment- that’s when the bill is presented to the President and the
President sign it.
Congress raises armies and navies
Congress makes rules re conduct of people while in the military
Congress can declare War
Congress has powers and limits; Article 1 Section 8 tells you what their power is.
Expresio unius est exclusio alterius- the exclusive list. If it’s not on the list, then it’s not on the
list (of enumerated powers).
-Broadest on the list is #3- Commerce Clause/Interstate Commerce
-anytime Congress wants to regulate something, they say they can regulate because of
interstate commerce. This allows Congress to get their tentacles on areas not on the list.
(ex- Civil Rights laws of 1964- regulates civil rights b/c impact on interstate commerce
due to not serving blacks.)
*If COQ says “Congress has passed a law…”- probably being tested on Commerce Clause.
Commerce Clause- narrow view – across state lines
Broad view- just about anything
-Crt starts with a narrow view – then FDR proposed new legislation- Congress passed it, Courts said No. FDR then said, for any Justice that is 70+ years old, going to add a Justice. This was the Court Packing Plan. In order to avoid Crt packing, Justices changed their mind or retired.
#18 Necessary & Proper-
● last on the enumerated powers list
● foregoing
● necessary/proper must be linked back to the 1-17 enumerated powers; N/P is not
freestanding.
● necessary “means” appropriate
Does necessary mean absolutely required vs. appropriate? Necessary means appropriate.
McCullough v. Maryland- Maryland is taxing a Federal Bank says they can’t be taxed. Maryland says yes b/c their bank is not valid b/c its not on the list. Feds say- however #18- Necessary/Proper Clause gives authority- they link it ban to tax/spending… “easier to tax if we have a bank” Crt sees you are trying to link it back. Question remains, is bank necessary/proper?
Comstock & Kebodeaux
This is the wrong answer on the bar exam; in both of these cases, the Dissention have correct Bar exam answer
