Upgrade to remove ads
Constitutional Law I
Terms in this set (40)
Who always wins in a fight?
The feds win as long as in area feds allowed to regulate
-Safety -Welfare -Health -Intrastate Commerce
State & Federal Spheres
-Hear federal question cases -Interstate commerce
-Coin money -Immig. -Decl War
A REGULATORY SCHEME (means) burdening a....PROTECTED INTEREST must be....RATIONALLY RELATED to exercising a....LEGITIMATE FEDERAL POWER (end)
Checks & Balances
--Veto Power e.g. legislative and line item vetos: president may veto the laws ; congress may override vetoes --Public officials e.g. independent counsel and judges: president appoints/removes many public officials; congress gives advice and consent and may limit the President's removal power; judges may serve as members of other official bodies as appointed by the President. --War powers -e.g. detention of enemy combatants: congress declares war and appropriates funels; President acts as Commander in Chief; Courts interpret limits of President's war powers.
Power that states have?
States have all the power except what they gave up. States kept a lot of things though
Slice & dice theory of government
Slicing & dicing sovereign powers; division between states & federal government.
What point was Madison trying to make in Federalist 10?
that national fed. govs protect liberty better than state institutions e.g. civil rights movement. --Why is it that it works like this? each state would be different --Problem is the tyranny of the majority-->always win; minority always loses 80/20. people who care most get their way...good & bad thing. --tyranny of the minority-->minority don't care so only vote on one issue. --better with feds says Madison because it averages out stuff because there's moderating influence on what feds can do.-->no one group unhappy all the time
Separation of Powers between three branches
separation is what we want but doesn't really happen; parts overlap; check up on each other-->checks & balances; president does alot with appointing power; congress passes law; president enforces; judicial can come in & say not enforcing it.
Check & Balances--Veto Power e.g. legislative and line item vetos
--President may veto the law --Congress may override vetoes
Checks & Balances--Public officials--e.g. independent counsel & judges
--President appoints/removes many public officials --Congress gives advice and consent and may limit the President's removal power --Judges may serve as members of other official bodies as appointed by the president
Checks & balance--War powers--e.g. detention of enemy combatants
--Congress declares war and appropriates funds --President acts as Commander in Chief --Courts interpret limits of President's war powers
What does Madison say regarding branches & separation of powers in Federalist 51?
Madison says Divide up powers & two branches & sometimes three hold hands & get it done. Moderating influence.
The result: Responsibile Government
--responsive or accountable to the people --ability to serve the people's true interests and reasonable will, even in the absence of immediate popularity.
Before constitution problems
States with different interests; especially if only have 1 vote; states weren't willing to submit to other states
What is a township?
Municipal gov. over mass of people; did day to day governing; local gov. institution; place where people most directly exercise power to rule.
Political Events Leading to Marbury v. Madison
Rise of Republican party
Disarray in Federalist party
Election of 1800 - Republican "victory"
Tie in Electoral College
Tie in House of Representatives
Efforts to maintain Federalist control of courts
Judiciary Act of 1789
Jurisdiction of courts
Termination of "circuit riding"
Threats to judiciary
John Adams trying to pack the court at this time
Chief Justice John Marshall
Author of foundational Supreme Court opinions:
Marbury v. Madison
McCulloch v. Maryland
Gibbons v. Ogden
(and Secretary of state under John Adams . . . .)
substantial effect on how con law developed
able to find ways to make things judicial when political
The court that has power to hear the case from the beginning
The court with the power to hear the case on appeal
vests the "judicial power" in what institution(s)??
Hint: U.S. Const. Art. III(1)
Supreme Court & interior courts
Congress makes decision what other courts get
ARTICLE III - U.S. CONSTITUTION
The judicial Power of the Untied States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
-- Art. III, sec. 1
To what does the
judicial power extend?
Hint: U.S. Const. Art. III(2)
 "The judicial Power shall extend to , in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made . . . To
. . . between Citizens of different States"
 "In all cases affecting Ambassadors . . . before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
(1) Federal Question: Why supreme court hear appeals from state courts
(2) Diversity: goes to citizenship between states
"DIVERSITY JURISDICTION" -statutory
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
(1) between citizens of different states . . . ."
28 U.S.C. SECTION 1332
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between -
Citizens of different states;
Citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;
Citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
A foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff, and citizens of a State or of different States.
BASICS - constitutional cases
Underlying "fact set"
Facts giving rise to the dispute
What "state action" is the court reviewing for constitutionality?
Action of a government
Statutory or regulatory scheme
Constitutional provisions at stake
BARE OUTLINE of Constitutional Problem Solving
State action" - or for us usually "exercise of federal power"
Did the state actor have the power to act? - mostly Constitutional Law I
Did another provision take that power away? - mostly Constitutional Law II
Michael McConnell - Story of Marbury v. Madison, pp. 20, 26
December 16, 1801 - Marbury requests a "writ of mandamus" from U.S. Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State Madison to delivery Marbury's commission
"Petitioned the Court to order Secretary of State James Madison to show cause why a mandamus should not issue directing him to deliver to petitioners commissions as justices of the peace."
Chief Justice Marshall sets case for argument in "next term"
February 9, 1803 - Trial in Marbury v. Madison
WHAT "STATE" ACTION IS THE SUPREME COURT REVIEWING?
(it's kind of two)
-->Was this done rightly?
-->they weren't delivered
-->(1)Should he be appointed?
-->lower courts-->jumped right over them & went to supreme court. Does supreme court have original jurisdiction to hear case?
Key Provision in Marbury v. Madison
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789
. . . The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and the courts of the several states in the cases herein after specially provided for, and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. . . .
"THREE ISSUES" in Marbury v. Madison
Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
If the right is violated does he have a remedy?
Is the remedy mandamus issuing from the Supreme Court?
WHAT ARE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AT STAKE?
ARTICLE IIIsec. 2, cl. 2
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
WHAT WAS THE "REAL" SIGNIFICANCE OF MARBURY
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
The Supreme Court required the executive branch to "show cause" and necessarily decided whether the judiciary could "tell the president what to do" - answer sure seems to be "yes."
MARTIN v. HUNTER'S LESSEE
Lord Fairfax gets land from king - colonial period
Dies - leaves estate to nephew, Denny Martin
Virginia bars "aliens" from inheriting Virginia land
1777-82? -Virginia grants part of "Martin" estate to Hunter
Martin's brother chases Hunter off land under Virginia law
1793 - Jay Treaty of 1793 - return property to British loyalists
Who would "Hunter's" 800 acres go to?
John Marshall - buys Martin's claim to Fairfax estate
PROCEDURAL POSTURE of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
Virginia court rules - "Hunter gets land"
1810 -- Virginia's highest court rules: "Hunter gets land"
1813 - U.S. Supreme Court rules - "Martin gets land"
U.S. Supreme Court "orders" Virginia court - "issue judgment for Martin"
Virginia highest court says - "no way"
Back to U.S. Supreme Court
Means and End analysis
Does Congress/federal government have the power to regulate or act ("end")
What is the "end?"
May Congress/federal government use the particular "means" chosen to exercise that power?
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
POS 1041 - FSU Fall 206 - FINAL EXAM pt. 1 (Presid…
Marbury vs Madison
Political Science - Nichols - Test I - Baylor Spri…
Constitutional Law Vocabulary
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR