Con Law Taney Court

Front 1

What were the themes of the Taney Court?

Back 1

a. erosion of unanimity in the Court
b. Stronger focus on states' rights
c. Interpretation of the Constitution to protect slavery (Dred Scott)

Front 2

Mayor of NY v. Miln?
Facts?
Issue?
Decisions?

Back 2

1837- recognition of police power to regulate things for the public good. (health and safety part of police powers)
facts: NY required all ships entering port to record persons on board-to keep poor people out of NY.
Issue? was the law unconstitutional becouse it conflicted w/ Congress's commerce clause powers?
Court SPLIT 3 ways:
Barbour--law is not a regulation of commerce, rather exercise of police powers
a. people are not articles of commerce
b. the law only operates in NY
THOMPSON-Congress hasnt legislated here so state is free to act
STORY- the law is regulating foreign and interstate commerce, which is the exclusive power of Congress-unconstitutional (based on possibly incorrect reading of Gibbons)

Front 3

What were the themes of the Taney Court?

Back 3

a. erosion of unanimity in the Court
b. Stronger focus on states' rights
c. Interpretation of the Constitution to protect slavery (Dred Scott)

Front 4

Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851)

Back 4

1.PA law requires vessels entering and leaving Philly port to hire a local pilot to navigate the waters
4. Foundation of modern law allowing states to regulate some portion of commerce. Factors
a. Is a Uniform (Federal Rule) necessary? Exclusively Fed
b. Is the area of law “Naturally” Federal?
c. Is the Issue substantially local in character? Then state can regulate as long as congress has not enacted contrary law:
d. Has Congress enacted a contrary law?

Front 5

PA v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co.

Back 5

If there's a situation where the court has said the state law is unconstitutional, Congress can nonetheless unhold it and say the state law remains in effect.

Front 6

Preemption in the Dormant Commerce Clause context? (Taney court) -Gibbons/willson/Cooley/Wheeling.

Back 6

i. Gibbons/Willson- States may regulate interstate Commerce when Congress has not acted
ii. Cooley-BUT state laws that infringe on area’s that are truly “national”, or admit of only one uniform system of regulation, may violate the Commerce Clause even if Congress has not acted.
iii. Wheeling- BUT, Congress can permit state laws that otherwise violate the Commerce Clause.

Front 7

Prigg v. PA

Back 7

Story- Art IV S2 "Fugitve Slave Clause" -gives various rights to slave holders--> Federalism concerns prohibit states from interfering w/these rights-->Only National Gov can enforce the fugative slave provision, no state could pass law that would assit in the returning of slaves (maybe thats why Story did this)


Taney- Concurrence- Slef-help justified on matter of convenience-- only laws designed to hinder the return of fugitive slaves are unconstitutional (disagree w/ Story here)

McLean- Constitution doesnt expressly give right to self help, Federal Legislation act of 1793 requires slave owner to go before a judge

Front 8

Dred Scott:

Back 8

-Overtured by 14th--
Holding- D not a citizen and thus not able to sue in federal court
the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional becouse it violated property rights protected by the Due Process Clause.

Front 9

Secession what were the views here?

Back 9

1. Lincoln- States do not have the right to secede –Union above all else
a. Nothing suggests states were signing on for a “trial period”—The Constitution is “perpetual”
b. Fed gov does have power to stop it!!!
2. Judah Benjamin (Jew)- States may secede
a. Only way to address grievances- Certain rights the States have are not susceptible to judicial determination-The Federal Gov could do certain things for which there is no judicial remedy—if this did happen then the states who were wronged would be justified in seceding.

Front 10

Dred Scott:

Back 10

-Overtured by 14th--
Holding- D not a citizen and thus not able to sue in federal court
the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional becouse it violated property rights protected by the Due Process Clause.

Front 11

Prize Cases (1863)

Back 11

1. President can act on a recognition of a State of war w/o Congressional authority in cases of emergency. Duty as Commander and Chief to repel attacks w/o waiting for Congressional action.
a. Can’t declare war but can react and recognize state of war and its up to him to determine that state. (when niggas is getting belligerent)

Front 12

Writ Of Habeas Corpus (Ex Parte Merryman)

Back 12

-Art I S9 declares the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in times of rebellion or invasion. The clause does not say WHO may suspend the writ.
a. Lincoln-Suspended the writ and Congress later approved the suspension
b. Taney-acting as circuit judge--said Congress only one that could suspend the writ becouse Ast I S9 list Congress' power nor the President's

Front 13

How did Lincoln justify his decision to suspend the writ of habeas corpus?

Back 13

---There was a massive insurrection in the South and the laws weren’t being upheld there, so he ignored one law to preserve the others
---“All the laws but one” argument
-------The Constitution doesn’t clearly say who has the power, but it suggests that president should deal w/ emergencies
--There was an emergency, so it’s likely he had this power

Front 14

The Emancipation Proclamation?
Justification?
Dissent?

Back 14

Lincoln frees all slaves in areas not under Union Control (Ares of active rebellion)
Justification? --acting ac commander and Chief (Art II power) and Justified as a military necessity to supress the rebellion.
Dissent? Curtis- (Dissent in Dred Scott) argued that this was unconstitutional, Federal gov has no power to end slavery under war power if they can do this they can do anything

Front 15

Military Tribunals (Taney Court)
Chase's Concurrence?

Back 15

Ex Parte Milligan (1866)-Lincoln's authorization of military tribunals held unconstitutional.
a. Can’t try civilians in front of a military court when the civilian courts are open. Can only use military tribunals when the courts are closed and you are in an active theatre of military operations
b. (no military tribunals for civilians)
c. Chase’s Concurrence-key distinction is whether or not Congress has authorized it. Would have been ok had Congress authorized it.