Constitutional Law- Nagel- Spring 2006- Righetti- Grade 95

Constitutional Law- Nagel- Spring 2006- Righetti- Grade 95...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CON LAW OUTLINE Who is acting What is the motivation Pursuant to What Power History of the area Issues and impact Justifiable (textual commitment, need for finality, prudential considerations, Judicially manageable standards) What Cases are relevant I) supreme court review of state decisions A) Marbury v. Madison i) It is emphatically the duty and province of the courts to say what the law is ii) establishes judicial review: those who apply the law must have authority to interpret it (a) Why judiciary? Marshall implies that the judiciary is either limited by congress or its inability to make law (though this is only partially true) and is not motivated to expand its power. (b) What happens when congress and the courts disagree about the way to interpret it? (c) What happens when the court changes its mind? wait for a new case? Or does congress re-enact the statute? iii) Modern view: Sup. Court opinions have the same binding quality as the constitution. (a) when public officials take oath to uphold the constitution are they bound by court decisions? B) Jurisdiction: i) there is appellate jurisdiction where there are questions involving: (a) US treaties (b) Statutes (c) the constitution ii) Original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls. ii) can review state court cases where: (a) Federal treaty is found INVALID by state court (b) statute, etc of state possibly repugnant to fed. Constitution is found VALID by state court (c) the construction of any clause of the constitution is in question (d) Hunter v. Martins lessee: US supreme court can appeal the decisions of the state supreme court on issues of federal law C) Congress can withdraw jurisdiction under Art. II i) this is rarely done but often proposed ii) congress cannot limit the essential function of the judiciary to review questions of law and fact II) Case and controversy requirement A) How to get adjudication on constitutionality of statutes: i) litigation: bring suit/claim based on statute
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
CON LAW OUTLINE ii) if government brings claim on statute raise constitutional issue as a defense iii) suit for damages: claim government action causing damage is unconstitutional iv) Writ of Habeas Corpus: challenge constitutionally if detention v) Seek injunction and declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of the issue B) Standing and Injury in Fact i) General: P must be actually injured: a nexus between injury and constitutional violation claimed ii) Taxpayers can challenge the expenditure of fed funds iii) Mootness: action must still exist at time of certiorari (except where capable of repetition but escaping review- does this apply to others similarly situated?) iv) Ripeness: Must be necessary to decide constitutional issue in order to determine legal consequences of the conduct. III)
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 02/12/2008 for the course LAW 6005 taught by Professor Collins during the Spring '06 term at Colorado.

Page1 / 13

Constitutional Law- Nagel- Spring 2006- Righetti- Grade 95...

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