Possible IDs - Possible IDs - Constitutionalism advocacy of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Possible IDs - Constitutionalism – advocacy of a system of government according to constitutional principles - Marbury v. Madison – Marbury was a midnight appointment and Jefferson tells Madison not to deliver the appointments; Held: the Supreme Court has the power to issue writs of mandamus but did not have original jurisdiction in this case, Marshall notes that the judicial branch, under a system of separated powers, has the power to strike down an act of Congress (judicial review) - Judiciary Act of 1789 – says that courts can hear cases of writs of mandamus (creates a conflict between Congress and the Constitution) - Cooper v. Aaron (1958) – Arkansas openly resisted desegregation and delayed plans to destroy segregated public facilities; Held: Arkansas was bound by federal court orders that rested on the decision on Brown v. Board of Education, the Court’s interpretation of the 14 th Amendment was the supreme law of the land and had a “binding effect” on the states - Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) – Virginia granted land to Hunter that was given to Martin by his uncle, the Supreme Court declared Martin was entitled to the land but Virginia refused to follow the courts decision; Held: Justice Story affirmed the power of the Supreme Court to override state courts to secure a uniform system of law and to fulfill the mandate of the Supremacy Clause, a federal court role is needed for it to be constitutional for checks and balances (every branch included —executive, legislative, and judicial) - Cohen v. Virginia (1821) – Cohens sold DC lottery tickets in Virginia where they were convicted; Held: The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings, Marshall then declared that the lottery case was a local issue and that the Virginia court was correct to fine the Cohens for violating Virginia law - Political Question Doctrine – 1. The Constitution assigns the responsibility to a different branch of government (the Senate is the “sole”) 2. The lack of judicially discoverable standards to decide 3. Might show lack of respect to other government, how will it effect the court after, do you second guess other branches, what is the remedy? - Doctrines: - Standing – Third parties cannot bring cases; must be something the court can fashion a remedy for - Against Advisory Opinions – cannot go to outside sources to issue opinions - Mootness – No longer a controversy or case (exception: abortion) - Ripeness – Case must be “ripe” or sufficiently developed before the court can take it Methods of Interpretation- MUST 1. Have justifiable grounds 2. Limit judicial discretion 3. Address cases - Textualism – a fair meaning of the words; court must be duty-bound to find meaning of the text of the Constitution, the truth of the Constitution, not their own moral truth - Original History (Historical Meaning) – discover what the framers intended or would have intended and apply it
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Problems: 1. Unforeseen problems (technology) 2. No way to prove what they
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/27/2008 for the course POLI SCI 411 taught by Professor Downs during the Fall '06 term at University of Wisconsin.

Page1 / 7

Possible IDs - Possible IDs - Constitutionalism advocacy of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online