Test 2 Flashcards
what must judges do if cases are deemed “political questions”
dismiss the case
why is the political question doctrine a thing
it is rule judges put on themselves to demonstrate “due respect” for other branches (the questions arising would be better answered in other parts of government)
what is the big case that goes with the political question doctrine
Baker v Carr (luther v borden, calgrove v green)
what are the facts of luther v borden
- some states had not written their own constitution (still used charter from colonial times)
- citizens wanted state legislature to write constitution (sued under guarantee clause)
- “the united states shall guarantee a republican form of government”
what is the issue in luther v borden
can the supreme court make them have a certain form of government
what is the holding in luther v borden
- supreme court did not want to be involved in “political question”
- is not up to them to decide what a republican government is
what is malapportionment
when the number of voters in districts varies meaning the less number of people get more representation proportionally
what are the facts of calgrove v green (malapportionment case)
- people in urban area say they are being denied a republican form of government because they get more representation in less populated areas
- sue under article 4 same as luther v borden
what is the holding in calgrove v green
- dismiss due to non-justiciable political question
- follows same logic as luther v borden
what are the facts of Baker v Carr
- people in memphis/nashville say they are malapportioned
- instead of suing under guarantee clause they sue under equal protection of laws
- less representation means less protection under the law
what was the holding in Baker v Carr
- case is justiciable
- agree with the plaintiffs
what was the rationale in Baker v carr
Sets up the rules for what a political question is
what are the first 2 rules determining the political question doctrine
- textually demonstrable commitment to another branch of government
- lack of judicially manageable standards to resolve the issue
how did Baker v Carr fit into the political question test
- equal protection clause does not show commitment to another branch
- justices use equal protection all the time in their decisions as a remedy
what are the 2 steps to the impeachment process
- bring the articles of impeachment to the house (1/2 has to agree to impeach)
- 2/3 of the senate has to vote to remove official
what are the facts of US v Nixon (judge not president)
- federal judge accused of taking bribes
- convicted of perjury (lying) for 5 years
- refused to resign so house impeaches him and vote moves to senate
- senate delegates a Subcommittee and Nixon sues because FULL senate did not try him
what is the holding in US vs Mixon
- court dismisses case due to political question
- art 1 sec 2/3 says senate will have “sole authority” to deal with impeachments (also a textual commitment to another branch)
- judges should also not be the ones to review these decisions since they are impeached the most
what is the roadmap of the constitution for article 1
sec 1- vests legislative power in congress
sec 2- establishes house and rules
sec 3- establishes senate and rules
what level of agreement does the senate need for treaties
2/3
where and what does the qualifications clause say
art 1 sec 5 “each house shall be the judge of elections, returns, and qualifications of its members”
what are the 2 ways to interpret the qualifications clause
- each house is able to set additional qualifications along with the current ones
- qualifications are limited to the ones prescribed in art 1 sec 2/3
what are the facts in Powell v Mccormick
- representative from new york
- congress doesn’t like him constituents do
- gets into legal difficulties and congress refused to let him take his seat even though he met requirements in constitution
what is the issue in Powell v MCcormick
can congress add qualifications beyond the constitution
what is the holding in Powell v Mccormick
no they cannot add more qualifications than listed in constitution
what is the rationale in Powell v MCCormick
- per madison members could turn democracy into oligarchy if they could set their own qualifications
- since the framers raised the expel amount to 2/3 but did not increase amount of qualifications they considered the limit already enough
what was the caveat with Powell v Mccormick
if they would have just expelled him instead of excluding him from congress it would have been fine
what is the historical context prior to US term limits v THornton
US amendment to add limits failed in 1994 so states started to attempt to limit their members of congress
what are the facts of US term limits v Thornton
- arkansas proposed amendment to their constitution for term limits of MOC (senators 2 terms reps 3 terms)
- thornton files suit due to unconstitutionality of it
- arkansas says Powell was abou congress not states
what did arkansas rely on in US term limits v THornton
- 10th amendment (powers not given to fed reserved for people)
- since they still allowed people to be written in they said it was not a qualification but a ballot regulation (art 1 sec 4 allows states to regulate time/manner of elections)
what was the holding in US term limits v Thornton
-states cannot add to the qualifications
- the standing qualifications are exclusive
what is the rationale in US term limits v Thornton
- “people should choose who they please to govern them”
- need for uniformity in qualifications among states
- court says it is an effort to dress eligibility in ballot access clothing
what was the court majority argument regarding reserved powers
- before the constitution was written states did not have the power to create qualifications
- since the constitution created congress the states were not giving up any of those powers of qualifications because they did not exist prior to the constitution
what was the court minority opinion in US term limits v Thornton
- if it doesn’t say it in the constitution it belongs to the states
- since they voted on it democratically the power is reserved to the people if not to the state
where and what is the speech and debate clause
art 1 sec 6- senators and reps shall be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of congress
what is the history of the speech and debate clause
kilborn v thompson 1881
- extends the rule to written reports and resolution
what are the facts of Gravel v US (pentagon papers)
- gravel is senator who is head of committee and brings up pentagon papers to show war in Vietnam is costly
- has arrangement with beacon press to publish papers
- justice department had a grand jury subpoena his aid and publisher to figure out how they got them
- gravel said the speech/debate clause should cover his aid and not be subpoenaed