Con Law 1 - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Professor Salamone I....

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Professor Salamone I. Judicial Review a. Marbury v. Madison : Established the right of the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality of legislative acts i. Article 3 defines the power of the Supreme Court: establishes the SCt and any courts Congress may create, and gives original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. It does not speak to the power of the SCt to interpret the Constitution – SCt is interpreting the Const. to determine that the SCt has the power to interpret the Const. ii. The Judiciary Act of 1789 is in conflict with Article 3 because it gives the SCt original jurisdiction to issue writs. To the extent that the Act contradicts the Const., it is invalid. 1. the Const. does not expressly prohibit additions or original jurisdiction, but subjects on which the SCt has original jurisdiction are expressly enumerated. Therefore, Congress cannot expand it iii. The fact that judges take an oath of office to uphold the Const. and there are limitations on Congress with respect to the Const. leads SCt to believe that the courts are those charged with interpretation of the Const. iv. Decision also based on the Supremacy clause, historical intent of the Framers ( Federalist # 78: Hamilton states that interpretation is within the particular province of the courts) b. Cooper v. Aaron : SCt says states are bound by judicial decisions, even when not a party to the case. Goes to Marbury and Art. VI Supremacy Clause: The SCt is the supreme interpreter of the Const. c. Dickerson v. US : Congress can not overrule a SCt decision II. Political Question Doctrine d. Denial of hearings – prudential consideration (includes questions that ought not to be reviewed as a matter of prudence) or separation of powers consideration e. Baker v. Carr : Plaintiffs wanted SCt to direct elections at large or direct a decree of reapportionment. Redistricting had been held a political question (Colegrove v. Green ). Now, SCt finds redistricting within power under the Guranranty Clause f. PQ Criteria i. textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political dept (S/P) 1
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
ii. lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards (prud.) iii. impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion (prud.) iv. court’s undertaking independent resolution would express lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government (prud.) v. need for adherence to a political decision already made (prud.) vi. potentiality for embarrassment from multiple pronouncements by various departments (prud.) g. Areas where this might appear i. foreign relations ii. date/duration of military activities iii. validity of enactments h. Sometimes, the SCt will step in and make fine line distinctions that seem to involve political questions. i.
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 02/15/2008 for the course LAW 1040 taught by Professor Barret during the Fall '07 term at St. Johns Duplicate.

Page1 / 49

Con Law 1 - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Professor Salamone I....

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