Con Law Flashcards

(52 cards)

1
Q

Marbury v. Madison

A

Established judicial review. Held: jurisdiction to the courts can only be decreased by Congress, never expanded past Article III constraints.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Supreme Court Supremacy

A

Supreme Court has authority over all federal questions and can issue injunctions over States and State Supreme Courts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Restraints on SCOTUS

A

(1) Judicial selections and nominations
(2) Impeachment
(3) Structural Interference (Congress controls the budget, but not salaries
(4) Jurisdictional Stripping
(5) A Constitutional Amendment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Standing

A

Cases must be Ripe and not Moot.
Moot: A live case, unless it is capable of repetition.
Ripe: If an injury has been materialized.

Constitutional Requirements:
Injury in Fact (concrete and actual or imminent)
Causal Connection
Redressability

Prudential Requirements:
No 3rd party standing
No citizens suits, unless a blatant Constitutional violation
Falling under the Zone of Interest (statute intents the plaintiff as a protectee)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Political Question Doctrine

A

Where a political question addresses an issue falling under the discretion of one of the other branches of the Federal government, the Court may dismiss the case.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Justiciability Doctrines

A

(1) No advisory opinions
(2) Standing
(3) Ripeness
(4) Mootness
(5) Political question doctrine

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Impeachment

A

Congress has absolute authority to determine impeachment procedures, but there may still be a lower limit on what those procedures may be (if they refuse to try the case).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Necessary and Proper Analysis

A

(1) Is there a Constitutionally valid goal the legislation attempts to achieve?
(2) Is there a rational relationship between that goal and the legislation proposed?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton

A

States may not impose regulations or limitations on their representatives serving in Congress or the Senate, like term limits.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Old Commerce Power Limits

A

Commerce Clause can be interpreted to allow Congress to regulate any activity that in the aggregate would have either a direct or indirect impact on interstate commerce.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Modern Commerce Power Limits

A

Congress may regulate (1) commercial channels (2) persons or instruments of interstate commerce (3) activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce
AND the aggregation principle only applies to economic activity
AND you have to already be a member of the market to be regulated in relation to it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Compulsion or Coercion (Dole)

A

Under the 10th Amendment States cannot be dictated to adopt policy by the federal government. They also cannot be coerced by bad options or threat of taking away large percentages of their funding.

Dole Test:

(1) Supports the general welfare
(2) Clear statement of the funding condition (unambiguous)
(3) The condition is rationally related to the funding aim, and
(4) It passes the bar set by other Constitutional provisions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Tax or Penalty?

A

Congress may not pass penalties, whether it is a penalty looks at whether the conduct is unlawful or simply undesirable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Test for Power under Sec. 5 of 14th Amendment

A

(1) Is the act related to any provision of the 14th Amendment?
(2) Is the solution proportional to the issue?
(3) Is the act remedial in nature?
(4) Is the act congruent (applied to the States equally)?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer

A

The President was not allowed to nationalize the steel industry for the war effort (Korea).

Takeaway was from Jackson’s Concurrence.
Authority and scrutiny is divided into three zones:
(1) The President acting on behalf of Congress, least scrutiny. (power at its maximum)
(2) The President can act, and Congress can act (shared role), less scrutiny. (zone of twilight)
(3) The President alone can act, severe scrutiny. (lowest ebb)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Presidents and Foreign Affairs

A

Shared power with Congress. The President has authority to negotiate treaties, but Senate must ratify. The President has the authority to recognize nations and receive ambassadors, but the Senate has authority over naturalization and citizenship. The Court is very deferential to the President in this arena.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Congressional Veto

A

It is unconstitutional.

One house of congress can’t veto because that’s an act of legislation which must be passed by both houses.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Line-Item Veto

A

It is unconstitutional.
By getting rid of specific lines, president is infringing on legislative branch by amending legislation. Power in Zone 3; lowest ebb

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Doctrine of Nondelegation

A

Congress can delegate authority to the President and executive agencies provided there is an intelligible principle limiting the discretion of the executive.
Congress cannot delegate legislative powers to an officer who is removable by congress.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Passing Law Requirements

A

All things with legal effect must pass both the House and the Senate (bicameral review) and be signed by the President. ONLY Congress can make laws.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

The Ability of the President to Fire

A

The President can fire anyone who is senior staff or who s/he appoints. Independent Regulatory Agencies are subject to statutory limits on firing, or people with investigatory roles, provided they do not unduly burden the executive.

22
Q

Executive Privilege (United States v. Nixon)

A

The President has executive privilege under an implicit constitutional right. Any explicit powers or interests granted to Congress and the Judiciary that require a breach of executive privilege will overcome the privilege (like impeachment investigations).

23
Q

Suing the President

A

You cannot sue the President for anything s/he does as President because he has sovereign immunity. You CAN sue the President for things s/he did before assuming the office while s/he is still the President.

24
Q

14th Amendment

A

No state shall abridge citizens’ privileges and immunities, liberty, due process, equal protection of laws

25
Dred Scott
Takeaway: Individual fundamental rights are protected by the DP Clause Held: To say that Scott was free by living there would be to put a Congressional act above the constitution. Not ok because it would deprive slaveholders of their property without due process of law.
26
Incorporation of BoR
Selective Provisions of Bill of Rights apply to States: DP Clause was used to achieve liberty by protecting substantive rights
27
Slaughter House Cases
Held: Law giving one corporation a monopoly over slaughterhouses was sustained because purpose of 13-15th Amendments was to free and protect slaves. Narrow interpretation of privileges and immunities clause: refers only to privileges and immunities of national citizenship, not state citizenship
28
Right to Travel Between States (Saenz v. Roe)
Law struck down: distinguished among state residents in the distribution of welfare benefits according to the duration of their residence within the state. Violation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause Differentiates between benefits, which are consumed in the state, and benefits that are transient like in-state tuition, which does have laws restricting newcomers.
29
Procedural v. Substantive DP
Procedural: Government cannot take things away without fair (due) mechanisms/opportunities (process) Substantive: Does government have an adequate reason for taking away someone’s liberty? (Decided based on level of scrutiny)
30
Lochner Era (1905) Substantive DP
Lochner: Held law restricting baker work hours unconstitutional as 14th Am. S DP violation. Said law was not a valid means to an end. Many laws interfering with freedom of contract subsequently invalidated
31
Post-Lochner Era (Post 1935) Substantive DP (Nebbia v. NY) (West Coast Hotel v. Parrish)
Shift to idea that state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adapted to its purpose as long as laws not arbitrary Nebbia v. NY: Milk price fixing does not violate DP because it has a rational relation to a legit governmental interest West Coast Hotel v. Parrish: Upheld a state minimum wage law for women. Judicial deference to legislature. (but see Footnote 4)
32
Footnote 4 (from Carolene Products)
Some situations where heightened scrutiny is appropriate even though Lochner was wrongly decided. Three things to determine discrete and insular minority groups meant to be protected: (1) Political Powerlessness (2) Immutability of the characteristic (3) History of discrimination
33
Rational Basis Review (Lee Optical)
Gov’t Interest: legitimate Means: Rational Burden of proof: Challenger Lee Optical: The law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional
34
Modern Era Substantive DP
Return to an identification of “fundamental” rights, in areas of personal freedom and autonomy outside the workplace/economic arena
35
Zone of Privacy (Griswold)
Zone of privacy includes fundamental rights and calls for heightened judicial scrutiny Judicial restraint will be achieved by adhering to 3 guideposts (1) history, (2) traditions of federalism and separation of powers, (3) basic societal values (Griswold concurrence)
36
Roe v. Wade
Held: constitutional right to privacy protects a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.
37
Positive v. Negative Rights (Abortion restrictions; Maher)
Our rights are freedom from government intrusion etc. etc. but not positive à We don’t have a right to food, shelter etc, Maher: Even though law made it nearly impossible for indigent women to get abortions, that is ok because it does not infringe on right to decide whether to have an abortion
38
Casey Undue Burden Test
Is the restriction an undue burden or substantial obstacle for the mother in obtaining an abortion? No: Gov’t may persuade/inform and further maternal health/safety Yes, Pre-Viability: Gov’t may regulate but not create undue burden Yes, Post-Viability: Gov’t may regulate/proscribe except for maternal health/life
39
Stare Decisis Factors (Casey)
To determine whether stare decisis should be abandoned and controlling precedent should be overruled (1) Whether the precedent is unworkable (2) Whether there are substantial reliance interests on the precedent (3) Whether the precedent has become “a remnant of abandoned doctrine” (4) Whether the precedent relied on facts that have changed or proven untrue
40
Fundamental Rights
Under Due Process Clause: Contraception , procreation, abortion, family autonomy, marriage, right to refuse unwanted medical treatment Under Equal Protection Clause: Access to courts, participation in political process (including right to vote)
41
Substantive DP Analysis
(1) Is there a fundamental right at issue? (No: rational basis review, Yes: move on) (2) If yes, does the statute infringe on the fundamental right? (No, rational basis, Yes, strict scrutiny is triggered) (3) Is government’s purpose adequate? (Rational basis=legitimate, strict scrutiny=compelling) (4) Are government's means sufficiently related to purpose? (rational basis=reasonable/rational, Strict scrutiny=necessary or least restrictive)
42
Strict Scrutiny Standard
Gov’t Interest: Compelling Means: Necessary or narrowly tailored Burden of proof: Government
43
Intermediate Scrutiny Standard
Gov’t Interest: Important Means: Substantial relationship Burden of Proof: Gov’t
44
Equal Protection Analysis
(1) What is the classification? Facially discriminatory: Ex. Black people can’t vote in elections, Facially neutral with discriminatory implications: ex. you can’t vote without a photo ID: Laws that seem neutral but have a disparate impact (2) What is the appropriate level of scrutiny? Rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny (3) Does the government action meet the level of scrutiny?
45
Facially Neutral Law Level of Review
- Law will be reviewed under rational basis unless plaintiff can prove (1) discriminatory effect/impact AND (2) discriminatory purpose/intent - Disparate impact is not enough to show intent - Factors used to find discriminatory intent: Statistical evidence, historical background, sequence of events, legislative/administrative history, departure from normal procedure - If plaintiff carries burden, burden shifts to gov’t to show race was not motivating factor for government action. - Then triggers strict scrutiny.
46
Affirmative Action (Bakke)
Can be considered if narrowly tailored All groups recieve strict scrutiny because (1) it may not always be clear if preferences are benign, (2) preferential programs may only increase common stereotypes, (3) it is unequal to force innocent persons in position of respondent to bear the burden of redressing grievances Affirmative Action: Allowed bc diversity has been held as compelling government interest. Rationale: Promote racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic, and religious diversity, Democracy benefits, Pathways to leadership -Race can be considered a plus factor in applications (Grutter v. Bollinger)
47
5th Amendment Racial Challenges (Adarand Constructors v. Pena)
Subject to Strict Scrutiny (1) Skepticism: preferences based on racial criteria require a searching examination, (2) Consistency: standard of review under EP is not depending on the race of those burdened or benefitted, (3) Congruence: EP analysis of 5th Amendment is in the same area as that under 14th Amendment Adarand: Adopted strict scrutiny for race preferences in federal and state contracting alike
48
Sex Discrimination
“Quasi suspect” and subject to intermediate scrutiny
49
Sex Based Purpose and Effect
Test: (1) whether statutory classification is neutral on its face, (2) whether the adverse effect reflects invidious gender based discrimination
50
Alienage
Discrimination against non-citizens Rule: strict scrutiny for laws affecting documented noncitizens lawfully residing in U.S. Public function exception Limit of public function exception: job must have discretionary duties
51
Disability
Rational basis test
52
No Right to Education
Rule: State may withhold its beneficence from those whose presence in the US is the product of their own unlawful conduct (Rodriguez) But this doesn’t really apply to children because they have little control (Plyler v. Doe)