Flashcards in Exam 1 Deck (43):
Article 1 of constitution
Gives power to legislative branch, they make laws
Article 2 of constitution
Gives power to executive branch, they enforce laws
Article 3 of constitution
Gives power to judicial branch, they interpret the laws
Camara v Municipal Court
Court upheld (5-4) that a state court conviction of a homeowner who refused to permit a health inspector to premised without a search warrant for public safety purposes-it was an administrative procedure (he wasn't the only one being targeted).
Presidents can veto and make executive orders, along with signing statements that explain how they interpreted a law passed by the Senate.
President does pocket veto by not acting on a bill from the Senate
Power of the courts to review statutes of legislature or executive orders for constitutionality.
Considered injurious (misdemeanors, felonies). These are serious crimes that will get the person over 1 year in jail and large fines
Torts (injuries between individuals-like car accident) and breaking of contracts (agreement between people)-sued for damages
Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases
95% proof beyond reasonable doubt
Burden of Proof in Civil
51% preponderance of evidence
U.S. v Park
ACME Markets charged with food safety issues (food shipments exposed to rodent contamination). ACME pleaded guilty but president refused that it was his responsibility to provide sanitary conditions of food. Court ruled in vicarious liability (held responsible for others' actions) and respondeat superior (let the master answer for the actions of his agent).
Rebuttable presumption (can be overcome with evidence)
Unrebuttable (cant be overcome)
Systematic review of practices designed to prove that it is environmentally safe. You are expected to report violations yourself.
1. Report violation 2. Cannot be serious environmental harm 3. Cannot have had any previous violation if new is the same kind (if not, okay) 4. Company cannot destroy evidence
Rights that cannot be taken away from one (even to help others) unless with administrative ruling
Divergence/sharing of powers between federal, state, and local governments (marbled v layered cake)
Supremacy Clause (Article 6)
If federal and state governmental powers are contradicting, the federal decision stands.
(Police power amendment) ability of states to regulate health, safety, etc
Interstate Commerce Clause (enumerated powers)
Federal government has power to regulate interstate commerce due to their listed (enumerated) powers (article 1) in the constitution.
Active and Dormant Commerce Clause
Active-where Congress passed law and state govt challenges law stating feds infringe state powers
Dormant-rare. There is no federal law and states/cities pass law designed to protect their interests
Wickard v Filburn
A referendum vote of farmers on wheat was talked about in speech by Secretary of Agriculture which outlined pros, not cons. Farmer took appeal to District Court when he was penalized due to wheat quota enlisted. Court held that amendment shouldnt be applied because the speech invalidated the referendum
(Preempt the field) federal govt plans for their regulations regarding an issue to be the overriding one
Due Process Clauses
5th-fed govt cant deny due process
14th-states cant deny due process
Procedural and Substantive Aspects of Law
Procedural-govt cant take away life, liberty, or property unless they follow procedures in law
Substantive-definition of crimes, must prove every piece of definition
(5th amendment) govt shall not take private property for a public use without just compensation
Lucas v S.C. Coastal Council
SC prohibited construction or any eroding beaches. Lucas bought 2 lots before law was passed to build condos. Hadnt started construction yet, said law was taking without just compensation. State court gave him $1.2 m. Supreme court agreed with $.
Palazzolo v RI
Property was mostly a marsh protected as coastal wetland. Regulations were in effect before he bought property. He knew this, but took it to court as a takings w/o compensation. Court overthrew charge?
Kelo v City of New London
Kelo wanted court to adopt a new rule that economic development doesnt qualify as a public use.court said not supported by precedent or or logic
US v Lopez
Gun-free school zones are not constitutional
Equal Protection and Environmental Racism
Equal protection (14th)-no state can deny full protection of the laws to any person (except in certain conditions that risk safety of others-blind people cant drive)
Environmental Racism-situations where superfund sites get cleaned up in rixher areas, poorer areas take much longer or ignored (minorities)
Just because a right isnt in 10 amendments doesnt mean its not a right. Is there a right to a clean environment?
Tanner v Armco Steel-rejected right to clean environment
Public Trust Doctrine
Govt is trustee (executes will of person) of citizens and will protect for everyones sake
Adversary v Inquisitorial Systems
Adversary-trial by ordeal (God will promote justiceto righteous-english/american system)- lots of $ equals better odds
Inquisitorial-cooperative approach, judge, and representation of two sides sit down together to talk-not very much $
U.S. v Hayes International Corporation
Society of Plastics v County of Suffolk
Society of plastics sued a county over a plastics ban in McDonald's because they failed to have an environmental review before making the law. Court said group had no standing because they couldnt show their injury as larger than the public at large.
Subject Matter-specified courts (drug, juvenile, domestic...)
Personal-civil cases (service of process "youve been served")
Process to find what evidence other side has and make them produce it (subpoenas, interrogatories-written under oath, and depositions-oral under oath)
Juries: petit and grand
Petit-trial jury, they decide whether you are guilty or not (6-12 people)
Grand-Investigative jury, they look into crimes to see if there is enough probable cause to bring case to trial
Parts of Standing
1) show injury
2) assert your own rights (unless vicarious-ex. parents)
Case of Controversy Requirement
This is what standing is based on. Includes Doctrine of Mootness and Ripeness.
Courts wont decide cases if the issue presented in the case has already been resolved somehow