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;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Marbury v. Madison-1803 Facts |
facts: The Federalist-controlled govt. created 42 new judicial posts mandated for D.C. President John Adams nominated members of his own party, including Marbury. When James Madison took over as Jefferson's Sec of State, he found Marbury's commission and refused to deliver it. Marbury brought the suit in the Sup. Court to compel delivery of his commission based on sec. 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction. |
|
|
Marbury v. Madison-decision |
Chief Justice Marshall used this case to establish for the Supreme Court, the power of judicial review. 3 questions: 1) Does Marbury have a right to commission he demands? yes 2) If he has aright, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? yes 3) If yes, does the court handle it? NO *writ of mandamus is not warranted by the Constitution. The Constitution is either the Supreme Law of the Land or it is equal with the laws. Since, the Judiciary Act is unconstitutional, the court has no power to issue writs of mandamus.
|
|
|
Stuart v Laird |
case involving the Judiciary Act of 1801 and the Repeal Act of 1802. -Can Congress make or take away judicial positions, establish and abolish lower Federal Courts? Yes. This ended showdown with Congress. Had the Supreme Court declared the Repeal Act unconstitutional, Congress would have limited the power of the Judicial Branch.
-Marshall did not sit in on this case because of his prior involvement at the circuit level. |
|
|
Eakin v Raub |
Gibson's dissenting opinion regarding his opposition to Chief Justice Marshall's opinion about judicial review. It is the most noteworthy dissenting opinion of judicial review. He says that judicial review violates the idea of separation of powers. Judicial power makes the court more powerful than the legislative. The people should correct legislation by Congress rather than the Courts. |
|
|
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee(1816) -facts |
Hunter claimed ownership of a tract of land in the state of Virginia that was given to him by the State pursuant to a land confiscation act. Martin claimed ownership to the same tract of land, arguing that the Act was in violation of a treaty between the United States and Great Britain. The Virginia Court of Appeals, reversing the trial court, found in favor of Hunter. The Supreme Court took jurisdiction over the case, reversed and remanded the case back to the Virginia Court of Appeals and instructed it to enter judgment for Martin. On remand the Virginia Court of Appeals declined and argued that the law, section 25 of the Judiciary Act (the Act), pursuant to which the Supreme Court took appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Appeals, was unconstitutional. |
|
|
Martin v. hunter's Lessee-decision |
-was section 25 of the act constitutional? (Who gets to handle appellate jurisdiction?) -Can the Supreme Court review state decisions? yes, the Constitution Article 3 sec 2 says that the judicial power extends to all cases, arising under the Constitution, laws and treaties. Also- Article VI sec 2-supreme law of the land.
*Court of Appeals argued that they could not declare appellate jurisdiction over state courts. |
|
|
Cooper v Aaron(1958)-Facts |
Arkansas governor wished to have the state legislature make it legal to segregate children in school based on his or her race. The governor's argument was that the case was only binding until the state legislates otherwise, and that Brown v. Board of Education does not apply to Arkansas. question: Whether a state is bound by all Supreme Court case decisions? |
|
|
Cooper v Aaron-decision |
Yes, each state has their own sovereignty, but they must follow the supreme court decisions and federal law. (thanks to 14th Amendment and Article VI of Constitution) concurrence(Frankfurter)-laws do not bend to force-to yield to such pressure is to embrace lawlessness which is a precursor to Anarchy. |
|
|
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc |
Plaut sued Spendthrift Farm under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit was dismissed for not being filed in a timely fashion.
Rule of law- Congress may not require the federal courts to reopen a case after a court has rendered final judgment.
issue: May Congress require Article III courts to reopen cases on which they have passed judgment? |
|
|
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc-decision |
Scalia-no, Appeals Court ruling affirmed. Congress has overstepped the separation of powers. -deprives the judicial judgments of their meaning. Breyer(concurrence)- violates basic separation of powers Stevens and Ginsburg-dissent- for constructive legislative cooperation rather than a usurpation of judicial perogatives. |
|
|
Ex Parte McCardle |
A Mississippi newspaper editor was held for trial before a military commission on charges that he had allowed to be published articles alleged to be libelous. Issued a writ of habeas corpus under an 1867 statute. Congress feared that the Supreme Court would declare a lot of the reconstruction program unconstitutional so they repealed the part of the act of 1867 that McCardle's appeal was based on.
issue: Does Congress have the power to take away jurisdiction previously granted to the Supreme Court?
issue: |
|
|
Ex Parte McCardle-decision |
Chief Justice Chase delivered opinion- Yes. Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
|
|
Baker v Carr-Facts |
Charles Baker was a resident of Tennessee that filed a suit against Carr(Sec. of State for Tennessee) due to the lack of restructuring of legislative districts for over 50 years. This violated the Tennessee Constitution which required redistricting every 10 years. Baker argued that the demographics and population had changed, which diluted his vote in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Issue: (1)Do federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to a legislative apportionment? (2) What is the test for resolving whether a case presents a political question? |
|
|
Baker v. Carr-decision |
Brennan delivered opinion of court- Yes, federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to a legislative apportionment.
|
|
|
political question doctrine |
created in Baker v Carr-a political question is present if there is: (1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department. (2) lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it (3)the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion. (4) the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of govt. (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made. (6) the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. |
|
|
Textualism |
explicating the constitutional text simply on the basis of the words found there.
example: Justice Scalia- argues that primacy must be accorded to the text, structure, and history of the document being interpreted, and he believes that the job of the judge is to apply the clear textual language of the Constitution or statute, or the critical structural principle necessarily implicit in the text. -often difficult to apply because it involves the analysis of an enormous amount of documents/almost fits the job of a historian rather than a lawyer. |
|
|
Precedent |
stare decisis-a standing in a case or a decision made in a case is used as the basis for comparing against later cases involving the same political or constitutional issue. |
|
|
Constitutional Doctrines |
formulas or slogans extracted from a combination of the constitutional text and related cases. |
|
|
Living Constitution |
the idea that the framers left the constitution broad so each generation has the right to adapt the constitution to its own needs, proponents of this approach regard the Constitution as a "morphing document." |
|
|
Judicial Review |
the power to invalidate those actions of the other branches of the federal govt. that are, in the view of courts, contrary to the Constitution. Precedent set in Marbury v. Madison. |
|
|
In re Neagle-Facts |
Justice Field(US Attorney Journal) appointed Neagle, a U.S. marshall to protect him. Neagle shot and killed a man who appeared to be threatening to Field's life. He was arrested in California and tried for murder. The United States tried to free him based on a writ of habeas corpus.
Issue: Was the state obligated to obey the writ even though no national statute empowered the Attorney general to provide judges with bodyguards? |
|
|
In re Neagle-decision |
Yes, the Court held that the Attorney General acted appropriately since assigning Neagle as Field's bodyguard assured that the nations laws would be faithfully executed.
-this decision by the court supports prerogative powers under the reasoning that since the responsibility for preserving the peace of the nation rests with the President, so is the power necessary to fulfill that responsibility. |
|
|
Luther v Borden-facts |
In 1841, Rhode Island was still operating under an archaic system of government established by a royal charter of 1663. The charter strictly limited suffrage and made no provision for amendment. Dissident groups, protesting the charter, held a popular convention to draft a new constitution and to elect a governor. The old charter government declared martial law and put down the rebellion, although no federal troops were sent. One of the insurgents, Martin Luther, brought suit claiming the old government was not "a republican form of government" and all its acts were thereby invalid. Issue: Did the Court have the constitutional authority to declare which group constituted the official government of Rhode Island?
|
|
|
Luther v Borden-decision |
The court held that the power to decide that a state government has been lawfully established does not reside in the jurisdiction of the court. The Court held that the creation of republican forms of government and the control of domestic violence were matters of an essentially political nature committed by the Constitution to the other branches of government. Hence, the Court should defer to Congress and the President when confronted with such issues.
|
|
|
Lujan v. Defenders of wildlife-facts |
Plaintiffs brought suit requesting an injunction requiring the Secretary of the Interior to reinstate an initial interpretation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The initial interpretation applied the Act to actions taken in foreign nations. The Secretary claimed that the Plaintiffs lacked standing. Issue: Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Secretary’s interpretation of the ESA under either traditional rules of standing or the individual cause of action created within the ESA? |
|
|
Lujan v Defenders of wildlife-decision |
The case and controversy requirement of Article III creates three minimal elements in order to have standing. The plaintiff must have suffered (i) an “injury in fact”; (ii) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (iii) it must be likely that this injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
dissent-The Plaintiffs have raised genuine issues of fact as to both injury and redressability. Additionally, the court’s enforcement of Congressional Acts through the citizen-suit provision do not violate separation of powers |
