Judicial Power - Constitutional Interpretation Flashcards
Judicial Review
The process by which courts determine the constitutionality of actions taken by the legislature and executive branches as well as actions taken by the states.
Marbury v. Madison held that the judicial branch has authority to interpret the US Constitution and declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
Original Jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction means that a case can be brought directly to that court to be adjudicated, without first going to a lower court. These are typically cases of vital importance to the Union.
Typically applies to: disputes between states; actions involving various public officials; disputes between the United States and a state; and proceedings by a state against the citizens or aliens of another state.
Note: Congress can alter this.
Appellate Jurisdiction
If a court only has appellate jurisdiction with regards to some type of case, that case cannot be brought first in that court. Instead, it must first be adjudicated in a lower court and can then be appealed to a court with appellate jurisdiction.
Marbury v. Madison
President John Adams tried to appoint last-minute judges but failed to get a commission in time before his political opponent Thomas Jefferson became the next President. Marbury, the would-be judge, sued for a writ of mandamus that would have made Jefferson give him his spot on the bench. Congress had authorized SCOTUS to issue writs of mandamus as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 so they had original jurisdiction which is how Marbury went straight to SCOTUS. Court held they had judicial review to declare laws unconstitutional but also that SCOTUS lacked original jurisdiction because the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional.
Originalism
A jurisprudential approach stating that judges should read the text as it is, not how they want it to be. A right exists only if expressly found in the text or intended by the framers.
Rationale for Originalism
The nature of interpreting a document requires its meaning to be limited to its text and the framers’ intentions. Originalism is desirable to constrain the power of unelected judged in a democracy. Judicial review is a deviant institution because unelected judges could overturn popular decisions (aka the “counter-majoritarian difficulty”).
The Counter-majoritarian Difficulty
The belief that it is problematic for non-elected judges to overturn a popular decision that reflects the will of the majority through judicial review. Examples include overruling, neutering, or excising portions of laws.
Non-Originalism / Living Constitutionalism
A jurisprudential approach stating that judges should go beyond the Constitution and enforce norms outside the four corners of the document. Other factors should be considered such as how times have changed, how factors may now exist that were unanticipated by the framers, etc.
Rationale for Non-Originalism
Times change and the framers could not have foreseen every new difficulty encountered by the nation. Therefore, judges should interpret the Constitution in light of what will make the most sense in the present day, unconstrained by the four corners approach.
Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation, in service from after the Revolutionary War until 1789, had a weak central government that could not address conflicts between States. The Articles of Confederation had no executive or judiciary. Only a legislature in the form of the “Confederation Congress”. It had no taxation authority, no power to regulate commerce, and had no ability to regulate individuals. It could wage war, coin money, establish post offices, and deal with Indian tribes.
Articles of Confederation vs. The Constitution
The Constitution was created to fix the infighting caused by States refusing to cooperate and freeriding under the weak central powers of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution rectified these problems by establishing the executive and judiciary on top of making the powers of the legislature more robust. The Supremacy Clause and other fixtures like the Dormant Commerce Clause allowed the federal government to keep the States from infighting too much, but this increased central power was balanced by restrictions on federal authority such as the Tenth Amendment.
Separation of Powers
Usually referring to horizontal power between the branches of the federal government, but can be applied more broadly as a concept to the relations between multiple branches and levels of government.
Horizontal Power = Checks and balances between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Vertical Power = Separation between federal and state authority.
Federalism
A principle of government defining the relationship between the federal government and State governments. The federal government preempts the authority of States on many issues through the Supremacy Clause, but the States retain the police power and all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government under the 10th Amendment.
How Federal Laws Are Passed
Most bills are passed through bicameral passage and presentment. Either the House of Representatives (most populous group representing states according to population size) or the Senate (two reps per state to reflect interests of each state equally as states) can propose bills. Both must pass the same version before it is presented to the President to be signed or vetoed.
The Federalist Papers
As part of the ratification debates, the framers wrote the Federalist Papers to analyze and defend their decisions. The 85 essays composing the Federalist Papers were primarily written by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay. SCOTUS uses them as proof of the framers’ intent.
