Con Law I - 03:06 Marburyv.Madison 1034 03:06...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–8. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
03:06 Marbury v. Madison
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
10-34 03:06 Martin v. Hunter’s Lesee      1816 Limits on Federal Judicial Powers     Interpretive o Originalism o Non-originalism Congressional Justiciability DC v. Heller      2008 (See Emmanuels) nd  Amendment Prefartory Clause o Militia – ordinary meaning, able bodied men o Well regulated means well disciplined Relationship b/w Pref and Operative clause o Op clause: fit w/ individual right to bear arms? Historical purpose s
Background image of page 2
03:06
Background image of page 3

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
03:06 Jan 27 CB pp. 34-37, 40-42, 45-53 Ex Parte McCradle      1868 P.40-42  Justiciability Limits P. 45-53  Constitutional Standing Requirements      1933 Allen v Wright      (1984) (Doctine of Standing (cont) 3:45 Standing problem  Injury in fact, causation PL parents suig IRS Minorities attempting to send kids in their communities School under court orders to desegregate Parents were frustrated and harmed b/c un able to segregate b/c schools that did  discriminate Other school took away white students Sue IRS b/c IRS supposed to deny tax exemption to schools that discrim on  basis of race – deny schools tax exemptions Discrim effectively aided by the gov’t –  Sought stanging on the basis that it harmed minorities
Background image of page 4
03:06 NO STANDING – no deseg. education was injury in fact, Bu PL further claim that IRS failed in legal duty monitor tax exempt did not satisfy  Causation Redressability o B/c: 1) Can’t fairly trace injury (inability of integrated schools) to tax  exemption policies b/c even if tax exemptions withdrawn, not clear  whether loss of exemption that white parents would take kids out of  those private schools 2) Crt reluctant to confer standing b/c worried about propriety allowing  PL to sue gov’t to do better job in enforcing the law. Such slaim raises serious seperation o fpowers concerns Judiciary be monitor of law enforcement s
Background image of page 5

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Feb 1 CB pp. 53-60, 77-80, 92-96 P. 53 - 60 Massachusetts v EPA      (2007) P.77 - 80–  Prohibition of Generalized Grievances U.S. v Richardson     P. 92-96 –  Ripeness Poe v Ullman      (1961) Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner      (1967)
Background image of page 6
Article III - Mootness 03:06 Feb 3 CB pp. 97-107, 116-125 P.97-107 –  Mootness   Doctine Application is less strict than other doctrines Flexible  Exceptions to Mootness Rule: 1. ‘ capable of repetition, yet evades review’
Background image of page 7

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 8
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 07/07/2010 for the course LAW Law taught by Professor Abrams during the Spring '10 term at Lewis & Clark.

Page1 / 106

Con Law I - 03:06 Marburyv.Madison 1034 03:06...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 8. Sign up to view the full document.

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