Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/7

Click to flip

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