Constitutional Law I Outline

ConLaw
Schindler
Spring 2011
 
 
I. General Principles
•      Two primary themes throughout this course:
•    Separation of powers – the horizontal relationship between 3 branches of federal government; and
•    Federalism – the vertical relationship between federal government and States.
 
II. KEY POINTS
•      Main concept: The federal judiciary has the power, under Article III, to decide enumerated cases and controversies.  The scope of this power includes the power to:
•   Declare the meaning of federal law;
•   Decide the constitutionality of federal and state laws and the acts of federal and state officials;
•      Article III provides:
•   Section 1 vests judicial power;
•   Section 2, cl. 1 enumerates cases and controversies over which judicial power extends;
•   Section 2, cl. 2 outlines original and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court
•   Original jurisdiction very limited;
•   Appellate jurisdiction over everything else.
•      Scope derived from a series of decisions
•   Power to review federal laws and the acts of federal officers, and to declare the meaning of the Constitution, found in Marbury v. Madison (1803);
•   Power to review state court decisions affirmed in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee and reaffirmed in Cohens v. Virginia
•      Congress also has power to limit Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction
•   Court upheld in Ex Parte McCardle (1869)
III. ARTICLE III
•      Section 1 – Judicial power of United States is vested in:
•   One Supreme Court;
•   Such inferior courts as Congress may from time-to-time establish
•      Section 2, cl. 1 – Judicial power extends to all cases in law and equity:
•   Arising under Constitution, United States laws and treaties.
–  Judicial power extends to:
•   Where United States is a party;
•   Between two or more states;
•   Between citizens of different states.
•      Section 2, cl. 2:
–  Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases
•   Where a state is a party.
•    In all other cases to which federal judicial power extends, Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction, with such exceptions and regulations as Congress shall make.
 
IV. MARBURY v. MADISON
•      Issues:
•    Can Court declare a law unconstitutional?
•   Does Constitution or a statute control?
•   In the event of a conflict, the Constitution prevails.
•   Does the judiciary get to decide?
•   “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
•   “[A] law repugnant to the constitution is void.”
•   Decision firmly established concept of judicial review and greatly enhances power of Supreme Court.
•   THPs
•   “Judicial Review”:  The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution vis a vis the other branches
•   Article 3 Section 1 “judicial power” implies judicial review
•   Tools of interpretation:  Plain Language; Expressio Unius; Founders Intent
•   “Case and Controversy”:  The court’s duty is limited to litigating concrete claims involving “the rights of individuals”; not arbitrate theoretical political disputes
 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL REVIEW – POLITICAL QUESTIONS
I. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
1.     Issue:  Whether Article III extends Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction to state court decisions?
•    Congress has discretion to create lower federal courts
•   If Supreme Court lacked appellate jurisdiction, it would be powerless to hear cases on appeal.
•   Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving questions of federal law is necessary to ensure national uniformity
2.     FACTS: Land was willed to a British citizen contrary to a VA state law. VA claimed the Supreme Court could not hear the case because it started in a state court and should end in a state court
3.     THPs:
•Supreme court is final arbiter of the Constitution vis a vis the States
•The third article of the constitution grants appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court where it does not have original jurisdiction except in those instances where Congress has limited federal appellate jurisdiction
•This maintains uniformity, i.e. one interpretation of the constitution as opposed to fifty different ones
 
 
II. LIMITS ON JUDICIAL REVIEW POLITICAL QUESTION KEY POINTS
·         Non-Justiciable Political Question Doctrine
o   A question of law or policy (if policy, does not apply)
1.      Textual commitment to another branch?
2.      Prudential- And/or is there a lack of judicially manageable standards?
ú  Too hot to handle category
ú  Is there a book of law that explains how to…
§  Ultimately rooted in Separation of Powers: Would a decision by the Court on the merits impermissibly interfere with other coordinate branches?
•      Main concept: political questions, meaning those questions that are committed to another branch or those which the judiciary cannot or should not decide,
     are nonjusticiable;
•      A separation of powers issue:
•    Constitution places responsibility elsewhere;
•    Courts are not competent to decide.
 
III. TEXTUAL COMMITMENT
•      Impeachment: Nixon v. United States (1993):
•    Test: Court examined the words “try” and “sole” in Art. I, §3, cl.6:
•   If courts could review impeachment procedures, Senate would not have “sole” authority to try impeachments.
•    Consequences: bad consequences would result from judicial review of impeachment proceedings:
•   Lack of finality;
•   Difficulty of fashioning appropriate relief;
− Precedent: Court distinguished Powell v. McCormack (1969).
−FACTS: Nixon a former chief