1) maggs_con_law_i_case_summary_chart

1) maggs_con_law_i_case_summary_chart - Name of Case...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Name of Case Section Heading Date Facts Holding Concurrences/Dissents Marbury v. Madison Judicial Review, The Origins 1803 Marbury was app'td justice of the peace by Adams; Marshall mistakenly didn't deliver the writ before he was CJ; Madison refused to deliver it 1) Marbury had a right to the commission; 2) he was afforded a right to remedy by the laws of the US; 3) but he was not entitled to the remedy because a) even though a writ of mandamus would be appropriate, b) the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and therefore the SC had no jurisdiction over this case. Was unconstitutional because the Act expanded original jurisdiction of the SC, and if Congress could just change original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction by passing an act, there would be no reason to have § 2 in Article III. Marbury lost, but the SC won. Ex Parte McCardle Judicial Review, Limitations on the Exercise of Judicial Review, Statutory Restrictions 1868 McCardle was being held illegally during the Civil War for libel, petitioned the Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus; denied; appealed to SC claiming jurisdiction under an 1867 Act which said could appeal directly from Circuit to SC re: habeas corpus ; Congress repealed the Act in 1868, after this case was argued but before it was decided The legislature has the express authority under the Constitution to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction. Therefore the Court no longer had appellate jurisdiction to hear petitioner’s cause of action. Was quite true that appellate jurisd. of the SC is conferred by the Constitution, not by an act of Congress. But it is conferred with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make. So this was an exception to the appellate jurisdiction. Court said we are not at liberty to inquire as to the motives of the legislature. Muskrat v. United States Judicial Review, Limitations on the Exercise of Judicial Review, Advisory Opinions 1911 Congress passed an Act appropriating land to Cherokees with provision that the validity of the Act and subsequent acts could be determined in Court of Claims and appellate jurisdiction to SC Court said by putting that provision in the Act, Congress was asking for an advisory opinion of whether or not the Act was legal, and SC was not authorized to give advice; see Hayburn's Case (Act authorizing court to decide pensions for widows and orphans which would then be reviewed by Secretary of War was unconstitutional because fed. courts are not subject to executive power). SC authorized to adjudicate only cases and controversies, Art. III section 2.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Nixon v. United States Judicial Review, Limitations on the Exercise of Judicial Review, Political Questions 1993 Judge Nixon convicted of perjury, still received his salary while in jail. Committee held a 3-day hearing re:
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 09/21/2009 for the course LAW All taught by Professor All during the Fall '09 term at University of the West.

Page1 / 17

1) maggs_con_law_i_case_summary_chart - Name of Case...

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