Con Law.Perry_bellis

Con Law.Perry_bellis - Comprehensive Constitutional Law I...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Comprehensive Constitutional Law I Outline – Perry I) The Supreme Court’s Authority 1) Marbury v. Madision (3-10) i) Summary: Marbury brought suit, asking the Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling Jefferson to deliver his commission as Justice of the Peace. ii) Holding: Marshall rules that the Supreme Court. doesn’t have original jurisdiction to hear this case. Even though allowed in Judiciary Act of 1789, that act is unconstitutional because Congress does not have the power to expand the Court’s original jurisdiction. II) The Federal Relationship 1) Review of State Court Judgments i) Martin v. Hunter’s Lesee (68-71) – Review of state civil cases (a) Summary: Martin concerned conflicting claims on a piece of land. Virginia Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hunter. Supreme Court issued a writ of error and reversed the Virginia decision. Virginia Court of Appeals then declared that the Supreme Court lacked authority to review state court decisions. Supreme Court granted review. (b) Holding: Story holds that the Constitution presumed that the Supreme Court could review state court decisions. Because: 1. If Congress chose not to create lower Federal courts, the Supreme Court wouldn’t hear any cases besides those falling under its original jurisdiction if it couldn’t review state cases. 2. State judges may be prejudiced by state concerns. 3. Supreme Court review is essential to ensure uniform interpretation of federal law. 4. Nature of Constitution, contemporaneous understanding of it, and years of experience all establish authority to review. ii) Cohens v. Virginia (71-72) – Review of state criminal cases (a) Summary: Two brothers were arrested for selling lottery tickets. Brought case to Supreme Court arguing that Supremacy clause prevented Virginia from prohibiting congressionally authorized lottery tickets. Supreme Court eventually ruled against them but established its right to review State criminal cases. (b) Holding: Marshall held that the Supreme Court could review state criminal decisions when the defendants claimed that their conviction violated the Constitution. 1. Same reasons Story articulated. 2. Further questioned the impartiality of State judges because they are usually elected. By nature, they can’t be as impartial as federal judges. 2) General Issues i) McCulloch v. Maryland (86-95) (a) Summary: Congress creates a bank. States didn’t like it because it called in loans. Maryland set a $15000 tax or 2% of the notes of the bank. The
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Bank of the United States refused to pay. The Maryland trial court ruled to Maryland and the appellate court affirmed. (b) Holding: The Supreme Court held that Congress has the power to create a bank and the states cannot hinder the bank. The Court considered two main questions. 1.
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 08/28/2008 for the course LAW 534 taught by Professor Steiker during the Fall '07 term at University of Texas.

Page1 / 16

Con Law.Perry_bellis - Comprehensive Constitutional Law 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