Final Flashcards
Describe the constitutional issue and questions of Marbury v Madison
In Marbury v Madison, the constitutional principle at stake is the jurisdiction clauses in Article 3 S2 of the constitution which explore original and appellate jurisdiction. The questions were if the plaintiffs had the right to receive their commissions and sue for them in the Supreme Court and if the judges had the authority to grant them their commissions.
Describe the precedent and opinion of Marbury v Madison
By unanimous decision, the court found that while plaintiffs had a right to their commissions, judges could not issue a writ of mandamus to grant their commissions because the case itself was not within the court’s original jurisdiction defined by A3 of the constitution– which held that courts had original jurisdiction over states and ambassadors. The majority opinion was that the law for which Marbury sued under, Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutionally expanded the court’s original jurisdiction beyond A3, and because congress is subjected to the supremacy clause of the constitution, the law was declared null and void. Marbury v Madison thus set the precedent for judicial review.
Define the facts of the Marbury v Madison case
William Marbury was a judge appointed by President Adams before he left office who did not receive his commission by the secretary of state. After President Madison prevented the secretary of state to deliver it, Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to receive his commisison.
Judgement of Marbury v Madison
Marbury v Madison is significant because the principle of judicial review itself is not found within the constitution. Hamilton first described the principle in fed 78, justifying it as a power that must be endowed to the supreme court because theoretically, if the executive and legislative branch were go beyond their powers in A1 and A2, no governmental body could check them but themselves. Hamilton argued that being the highest court of the country, the supreme court should be endowed with the authority to interpret law through the supreme law of the land, and to strike down laws and actions deemed unconstitutional.
Context of McCulloch v. Maryland
When the second federal bank was chartered in Maryland, the state imposed taxes on the bank, which McCollough refused to pay. Afterwards, the state petitioned that the second federal bank was unconstitutional.
Describe the constitutional issues and questions of McCulloch v. Maryland
The constitutional principle in question was Article 1 S8, specifically defining congressional powers. The questions of the case was if Congress had the authority to establish the bank and if Maryland unconstitutionally interfered with congressional powers?
Describe the precedent and majority opinion of McCulloch v. Maryland
The court unanimously agreed that under the necessary and proper clause of the constitution, Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland’s taxation of the bank interfered with the execution of constitutional powers. Marshall issued that majority opinion stating that congress held powers not explicitly defined in the constitution, and echoed that while Maryland had the right to taxation, they can not interfere or control the constitution and laws thereof. Therefore, McCulloch v. Maryland’s precedent affirmed Congress’ implied powers under the necessary and proper clause, meaning congress had authority to carry out actions necessary and proper to fulfilling their explicit powers of the constitution.
Judgment of McCulloch v. Maryland
I find McCulloch v. Maryland significant because it accentuates how state and federal power fluctuates in a federalist system. In this case, the court upheld powers of the federal government over the state, which is not what we think of conventionally as the court being a body which regulates federal overreach or deregulates federal power to the states.
Describe the issue within West Virginia v. EPA
The issue at hand in this case was whether a regulation issued by the EPA to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants was authorized by the Clean Air Act.
My Judgement of the West Virginia v. EPA
West Virginia v EPA is an important environmental law case as it regulates future endeavors to address climate change concerns by limiting the discretionary power of the federal bureaucracy and limiting the scope of the Chevron deference– court deference to agency interpretation of ambiguous congressional law. Broadly, the case can prevent the federal government from taking decisive action on urgent problems apart from climate change, like student loans and healthcare.
Describe West Virginia v. EPA precedent and majority opinions
The court deemed that Congress’ Clean Air Act did not authorize the EPA to devise the Clean Power Plan, and thus the EPA committed an act of bureaucratic overreach. The majority opinion stated the agency can only act under clear and explicit congressional authorization, and not implicitly. The precedent affirmed in West Virginia v. EPA was coined the major decisions doctrine, which bars agencies from acting on political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization.
Context of Kelo v. City of New London
New London used its eminent domain authority to seize private property and sell to private developers.
Constitutional issue and questions present within Kelo v New London
Plaintiffs argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment, which guaranteed the government would not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically, plaintiffs argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The case questioned if the city violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause if the city took private property and sold for private development with the hopes that it would help the city’s bad economy.
Court Precedent and Majority Opinion of Kelo v New London
The majority held that the city’s taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a “public use” within the meaning of the takings clause, even though it wasn’t going to be used by the public. The case set the legal precedent for the government’s “right” to seize land for private use as long as the land would provide some sort of public benefit.
My Judgement of Kelo v New London
In this case, the court greatly expanded the traditional definition of the power of eminent domain, making it especially controversial. While some concurred with New London’s cause for seizing the property for public economic development, dissenters of this case such as Sandra O’Connor stated that economic development takings are unconstitutional and that the precedent gives government a license to transfer property from those with “fewer resources to those with more”.
Context of Brown v. Board of Education
African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. Plaintiffs argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment despite Black schools having access to the same materials, funding, etc.. as white schools.
Constitutional issues and questions of Brown v Board of Education
Brown v Board sought to challenge the separate but equal doctrine previously established in the precedent of Plessy v Furgeson under the 14 Amendment. Specifically, the case questioned if the segregation of public education based solely on race violated the 14 A Equal Protection Clause.
Majority decision and precedent of Brown v Board of Education
The case unanimously agreed that the separation of public schools on the basis of race is inherently unequal and violates the 14 amendment. Brown v Board of Education’s precedent overturned the precedent of Plessy v Furgeson which determined segregation’s constitutionality.
My Judgement of the Brown v Board Case
Brown v Board of Education is a case that is considered a circumstance of activism because the Court acted untraditionally by overturning previous court precedent and interpreting current events. Additionally, Justice Warren, who delivered the opinion of the court, based much of his opinion on information from social science studies rather than court precedent.
Significance: Brown v Board highlights the upsides and downsides of court precedent, because while interpreting cases on previous precedent can be good because it allows citizens to rely on concrete laws and doctrines, relying on ‘bad’ precedent like Plessy v Furgeson’s can be destructive to the public.
Context of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer
Trinity Lutheran Church operated a preschool and daycare program that incorporates daily religious instruction. They applied for a state funded grant but was denied because Missouri’s Constitution stated that no funding could be provided directly or indirectly to aid any church or religious denomination. Plaintiffs sued arguing that their denial violated the 14 A Equal protection 1 A religious freedoms.
Constitutional issue and question of Trinity v Comer
The case questioned if the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause
