Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
7 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Power of Judicial Review
|
Power to declare acts of governmental officials unconstitutional, invalid according to the court’s interpretation of the constitution
|
|
|
Requirements for Standing
|
-Injury-in-fact: direct and personal harm
-Causation: Show that the gov’t is responsible for the harm (fairly traceable) -Redressibility: Court’s order will satisfy the problem |
|
|
Lessons from Marbury vs. Madison
|
-Constitution is fundamental law, superior to ordinary legislation and binding to all actors in the government
-Constitution is a species of law, and under the constitution it is the province and the duty of the federal court (and ultimately the Supreme Court), to say what the law is, including what the Constitution is and what it requires |
|
|
Marbury vs. Madison
|
-Judiciary Act of 1839, gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction for Marbury's case
-However, art. III did not provide that jurisdiction -The constitution is supreme, and therefore the Judiciary Act of 1839 was held invalid |
|
|
Supreme Court's Power to Review Federal Issues in State Cases
|
-Textual: State courts can hear federal claims and art. III gives the Supreme Court the power to review all federal cases, no matter the origin
-Historical: The First Congress called for the Supreme Court to review state judgments -Policy: Uniformity of federal law. States are not wholly independent sovreigns. They are sovreigns under the framework of the constitution. |
|
|
Arguments for Broad Judicial Review
|
-Not driven by political issues (lifetime appointment)
-Mode of Operation is to use reason, analysis and principle (as opposed to compromise in the political arena) -Least dangerous branch: no $$, no power of the purse, no armies. All it has is its own legitimacy and the acceptance of the people |
|
|
Arguments for Narrow Judicial Review
|
-Insulation of judges from politics is a liability, thwarting the will of the people
-Better that most of the judgments should be made by the legislative process, by democratic majorities, court is counter majoritarian (if Congress passes a statute, the people must have wanted it) -Should only step in if there is a clear mistake -Diminishes democracy in general: dulls the legislatures commitment to be true/staves off involvement |
