Constitutional Structure & Judicial Power/Review Flashcards
What are some of the functions of the constitution?
- Separate and allocate powers
- Protect Individual Rights
- Structure
True or false: Federal law is the supreme law of the land
True.
Federal law = Supreme Law of the Land (see Art. VI §2)
Where are individual rights mentioned in the Constitution? Why aren’t more individual rights expressly mentioned in the constitution?
Art. I. §9 Habeas Corpus
Art. III §2 trial by jury
Art. IV §2[2][3] treason
Why individual rights not listed in main text of the document?
1) Individual rights considered sufficiently protected by virtue of the separation of powers
2) Thought to be unwise to list them because the drafters knew it to be impossible to list every single right and therefore didn’t want to list some and risk the future interpretation that unlisted rights were excluded by the constitution
3) Function of government entitles remedy when a right has been shown to be violated (but note that there are exceptions like the Statute of Limitations)
How are the federal powers separated in the Constitution?
Article I: Legislative Branch made up of two houses: Senate and House of Representatives
Article II: Executive Branch
Article III: The U.S. Supreme Court/Judiciary
Why does are two branches of government so important in Article I?
Legislative Branch made up of two houses: Senate and House of Representatives
1) Slows down passage of a bill
2) Compromise made between small and large states as far as representation
3) Power is spread out even within the single branch of the legislature
4) Constitution requires that the two houses work in cooperation with each other
5) §8 Congressional powers granted (e.g. tax & spend etc.)
Why is Article II so small, yet so powerful?
Article II: Executive Branch
1) President appoints judges and Senate confirms
2) Appoint and removal of executive officers
3) Declare war?
True or false: Article III grants the President authority to set up the lower courts
False.
Article III: Grants power to CONGRESS to set up lower federal courts
Also:
1) Justices hold office during “good behavior” rather than on a basis of years like everyone else
2) Congressional impeachment and conviction (must be for egregious conduct x2)
3) Judicial compensation cannot be diminished by Congress (so that Congress can’t punish judges for decisions against Congress…)
4) Somewhat troubling that the one branch not answerable to the public (voters) controls the determination of constitutionality?
True or false: Judicial review is listed in Article III of the Constitution
False.
Judicial Review not provided for in the Constitution
Article III deals with the Judicial Branch. Marbury v. Madison (1803) is where Supreme Court announces its judicial review authority
What are the key takeaways from Marbury v. Madison?
1) The Court can only review certain forms of executive conduct
+ Non-discretionary actions separate from political acts or that fall within a specific, identifiable command
+ Ex: State of the Union are ONLY answerable within the political sphere because the only recourse against them are to vote against them
2) Court can review constitutionality of legislative enactments and can go so far as to pronounce the unconstitutional act to be without effect
3) The Court’s own power is limited to what the Constitution prescribes and cannot be increased by Congress
4) Marbury only concerns the federal judiciary NOT whether the SCOTUS can rule on state decisions
Can federal courts rule on state court decisions?
YES! Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee & Cohens v. Virginia
Supreme Court can rule on state court decisions
Why does it make sense for the Court to have this power? They are the supreme law of the land
What are pros and cons of process theory?
Pros: Good(ish) for minorities
Cons: Minorities will still not prevail sometimes—racially segregated swimming pool, same sex marriage- slow moving; puke test- strong presumption of favor of upholding legislation unless is really bad- only strike down legislature as unconstitutional if makes you want to vomit
What are the different constraints on judicial power (aka justiciability doctrines)?
1) Advisory opinions: not allowed
2) Standing: Is this P the property party to bring the issue to court?
3) Ripeness: Too soon?
4) Mootness: Too late?
5) Political Question: inappropriate for review
What are the requirements for judicial review where a court CAN hear an argument (thus rendering it NOT an advisory opinion)? Why can’t courts issue advisory opinions?
Judicial Review Requires:
1) Actual dispute b/t adverse litigants beyond burning curiosity of “what might happen if…”
2) Substantial likelihood that a federal court decision in favor of claimant will bring about real world change or effect
Hayburn’s Case (1792): law unconstitutional because recommendations of veteran pension amounts could be ignored by the Secretary of State; recommendations are not of a judicial nature
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. (1995): law unconstitutional because decisions already made by the courts would become null according to the legislature and that’s BAD
Are declaratory judgments advisory opinions?
Nashville v. Wallace: Court says declaratory judgment is fine because the matter could have been brought in the form of a request for an injunction and it is the substance that is the issue NOT the procedure/form
What are the three requirements for standing? What cases support these requirements?
Injury: Must have occurred or injury must be imminent. Cannot be speculative or hypothetical
Causation: Injury is fairly traceable to D’s conduct
Redressibility: Must allege that favorable court decision is likely to redress P’s injury
PLUS Two major standing principles
1) Generally, P can only raise his/her rights, not the rights of a third party
2) P may not sue a taxpayer sharing a grievance with all other taxpayers
Cases:
1) Allen v. Wright (1984): Lack of standing due to all three requirements
2) Massachusetts v. EPA (2007): Only one of the petitioners needs to have standing
3) City of L.A. v. Lyons (1983): No standing for an injunction
4) Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992): Future injury too speculative
What does ripeness require?
1) Fitness of the issue for judicial decision: Is there enough information for the court to issue a decision? Are issues adequately focused and presented? Court has to know the exact problem.
Is there a benefit to the court to hear the case? Would the court have to gather additional info to make a decision?
2) Delay will cause hardship to P seeking relief. Either will be prosecuted or waste money complying with unconstitutional statute
Court gives criteria for when a plaintiff can obtain pre-enforcement review:
What are the requirements for mootness? What are the exceptions and case illustrations?
Requirement: live controversy must exist at every stage of the case because you always have to have an outcome
Exceptions: This could happen again > Timing
1) Wrongs capable of repetition but evading review, injuries of short duration like pregnancy (Roe) or elections (Moore)
2) Voluntary cessation: party is free to resume the harmful actions again in the future (Friends of the Earth)
3) Class action suits (if properly certified). Even if the named plaintiffs claims are moot the case can go on.
4) Collateral injuries remain even though the primary injury is gone
Where has the Court invoked the political question?
Electoral process
Foreign affairs
Congress’s ability regulate its internal processes
Process for ratifying constitutional amendments
When federal courts cannot shape effective relief
Impeachment