POL353 Exam 1 Study Guide

POL353 Exam 1 Study Guide - POL353 Midterm Exam Study Guide...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
POL353 Midterm Exam Study Guide Marbury v. Madison- JUDICAL REVIEW What the Court Ruled: Marbury was entitled to his commission, the court ordered a writ of mandamus to Madison requesting he pay Marbury. o Mandamus: A court order issued to a government official to do something. Why the court ruled that way: The court determined that Marbury was officially appointed and had a right to his commission. The court said that if rights are violated there should be a remedy. The court determined that the best way to remedy the violated right was to issue the writ requesting the commission. Why the courts ruling is important: Through the issuance of the writ of mandamus the court claimed the power of judicial review. Cooper v. Aaron- ICORPORATION What the court ruled: The court ruled that Arkansas, despite the violence and turmoil that may result, needed to follow the courts ruling in Brown v. Board. Why the court ruled that way: Arkansas argued that public education is the responsibility of the states, and therefore they are not bound to obey federal court rulings. The court cited the 14 th Amendment to apply the ruling to the states, where it says, “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” The court established in Brown v. Board that segregated schools were inherently unequal keeping segregated schools in Little Rock denies African Americans equal protection. Why the courts ruling is important: Selectively Applied the courts ruling in Brown v. Board through the 14 th Amendment Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)- casual connection, injury has to be committed, STANDING What the court ruled: The court ruled that the defenders of wildlife did not have standing, because they could not prove injury. Why the court ruled that way: The court ruled that since the defenders of wildlife did not have immediate plans to travel to see the animals that were going extinct they did not have standing. o The court cites 3 things plaintiffs must satisfy before they can grant standing: 1: Plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”; an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is concrete and particularized and actual and imminent NOT conjectural or hypothetical 2. There must be some casual connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. 3. It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. o SINCE the plaintiffs had NOT yet suffered an injury in fact or have a traceable injury or have an injury that will be redressed by a favorable
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
decision by the court, for all these reasons the court did not grant the defenders of wildlife standing. o
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 02/28/2012 for the course POL 353 taught by Professor Dameron during the Fall '11 term at Miami University.

Page1 / 6

POL353 Exam 1 Study Guide - POL353 Midterm Exam Study Guide...

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