Midterm Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution grants the president the power to appoint and commission officers of the United States. Because the only evidence of the appointment is the commission, the two actions are tied together. Without the commission, the appointment is not complete, and so the president’s signature on the commission is the final step in the appointment process. (2) The Court also held that, upon appointment, the officers have acquired rights to their positions under the law. If those rights are denied, then they may seek redress in the courts. (3) Marbury and others sought an original action for their commissions in the Supreme Court. But the congressional act conferring that authority conflicts with Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. The judicial power in the United States extends to all cases under the Constitution and the Supreme Court is bound to decide cases according to the Constitution rather than the law when the two conflict. So if a law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, then the law is invalid. In this case, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act ran counter to the Constitution and is therefore void. Thus, lacking authority, the Supreme Court canceled Marbury’s claim.
In Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall established the theory of judicial review as a matter of federal law, concluding that the Supreme Court has the power to review laws enacted by Congress and declare legislative acts which violate the U.S. Constitution void, even though the judiciary is granted no such express power in the Constitution. While today the power of judicial review is accepted unquestioningly, such was not always the case.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)
Lord Fairfax held land in Virginia. He was a Loyalist and fled to England during the Revolution. He died in 1781 and left the land to his nephew, Denny Martin, who was a British subject. The following year, the Virginia legislature voided the original land grant and transferred the land back to Virginia. Virginia granted a portion of this land to David Hunter. The Jay Treaty seemed to make clear that Lord Fairfax was entitled to the property. The Supreme Court declared that Fairfax was so entitled, but the Virginia courts, where the suit arose, refused to follow the Supreme Court’s decision. Question: Does the appellate power of the Supreme Court extend to the Virginia courts? The Court rejected the claim that Virginia and the national government were equal sovereigns. Reasoning from the Constitution, Justice Story affirmed the Court’s power to override state courts to secure a uniform system of law and to fulfill the mandate of the Supremacy Clause.
Substantive Due Process
in United States constitutional law, is a principle allowing courts to protect certain rights deemed fundamental from government interference. The idea of substantive due process came in as a way to import natural law norms into the Constitution.
Eakin v. Raub (PA 1825)
The issue of judicial review lies at the heart of Eakin v. Raub. judicial review was first ratified in 1803 with the case of Marbury v. Madison. In that case, Chief Justice John Marshall legalized judicial review of laws enacted by Congress. This gave the Supreme Court the power to make void laws it deems unconstitutional. When Eakin v. Raub was called before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court several decades later, judicial review did not yet apply to state courts. With the decision of this case, state supreme courts were granted the same powers of judicial review as the national judicial branch.
Natural Law
fundamental, eternal, universal principles of morality and justice, derived from God or reason or both
Rochin v. California (1952)
Rochin swallowed drug capsules to dispose of evidence. The police pummeled him and jumped on his stomach in a vain effort to make him throw up. They took him to a hospital where a doctor was instructed by the police officers to administer an emetic by forceably passing a tube into Rochin’s stomach. He vomited the capules and was convicted on the basis of the evidence produced from his vomit. The Court reversed the conviction. The police violated Rochin’s right to due process of law. Due process was an admittedly vague concept, but it prohibited “conduct that shocks the conscience.”
Originalism/Textualism
judges should restrict themselves to the original meaning of the Constitution (issue with this is the bunny/duck image, changes based on the person)
Stuart v. Laird (1803)
was a case decided by the John Marshall-led U.S. Supreme Court, notably a week after the famous Marbury v. Madison. The case regards a circuit judge’s judgment, after the judge’s job had been abolished by the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801. Stuart’s lawyer was Charles Lee, who also represented William Marbury. John Laird asked the Supreme Court to uphold the judge’s ruling, while Stuart’s team argued that only the court that renders a judgment can enforce it and the 1802 repeal of 1801’s Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. Stuart lost on both accounts, and a dangerous showdown between the legislative and the judicial branches of the US government was averted. The case involved the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created a number of federal judgeships, the so-called “midnight judges,” as the Act was passed by the lame-duck Federalists in their final days in office. The Act established new circuit court judges to hear intermediate appeals. As a result, Supreme Court justices would no longer have to “ride circuit,” which entailed substantial and often dangerous travel, to sit with district (trial) court judges to hear appeals throughout the nation. Soon after its passage, the statute was invalidated by the Repeal Act of March 8, 1802. Federalists attacked the Jeffersonian legislation by arguing that federal judges were appointed for life and so could not be constitutionally removed by the Repeal Act. The Judiciary Act of 1802 reinstated circuit courts but also resurrected the practice of circuit riding. Many thought the new 1802 Act unconstitutional, including new Chief Justice John Marshall. He argued that justices should not have to preside over circuit courts unless they were commissioned as circuit court judges. Justice William Paterson held for a unanimous Court that Congress had the authority under the Constitution both to establish and to abolish lower federal courts.
Historicalism
Constitution is a living document and should be decided with the current societal background in mind. Example: The meaning of interstate commerce could not be restricted to the methods of commerce available at the time the Constitution was adopted. The phrase had to keep pace with the progress of the country Justice Holmes, “a case before the Court must be considered in light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago” Death penalty cases are not decided by what was intended in the 8th amendment in 1791, but by “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” (Trop v. Dulles)
Legal Realism
A theory of law and legal reasoning that arose in the early decades of the twentieth century broadly characterized by the claim that law can be best understood by focusing on what judges actually do in deciding cases, rather than on what they say they are doing. Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges. Realists believe that law does and should serve social ends. Judges unavoidably take into account considerations of fairness and public policy, and they are right to do so.
National Consensus
At times the SC will interpret the Constitution in terms of trends that develop in the states. It looks not to the text of the Constitution, framer’s intent, or natural law, but rather to how other people in the country are interpreting constitutional rights. In deciding death penalty cases “attention must be given to the public attitudes concerning a particular sentence….”. Furman v. Georgia helped convince the Court that the penalty of death was disproportionate. After the ruling, the SC invalidated existing laws on capital punishments, only 3 states put death penalty as a punishment for rape (Georgia, NC, and Louisiana). “two statutes prohibiting execution of the mentally retarded do not provide sufficient evidence at present of a natural consensus” (Penry v. Lynaugh). One issue: each time the Court “nationalizes” a constitutional value, it inhibits states from making independent judgments
Stare Decisis
“to stand by things decided” In interpreting the Constitution, we look partly at the “judicial gloss” added by the courts. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to interpret the law, and under the doctrine of stare decisis, judges try to honor prior rulings. Nevertheless, sufficient variations and discord among existing precedents allow any number of directions for future decisions. Judges hold different views about stare decisis, some are more willing to break from precedent than others. The Supreme Court’s practice is to apply stare decisis less rigidly to constitutional cases than to non-constitutional cases. This is because if the court errors on a non-constitutional issue, it can be fixed with a new law from the legislature, but if it errors on a constitutional issue, it is difficult to fix. Outright reversal of a ruling is rare. More frequent is the practice of ignoring a precedent or “distinguishing” it from the pending case. In 2015, the SC split 6-3 on the merits of stare decisis (Brulotte v. Thys Co.) the majority concluded that Brulotte had been subject to criticism but reasoned that “stare decisis means sticking to some wrong decisions”. the dissenters claim that “stare decisis does not require us to retain this baseless and damaging product”
Constitutional Amendments
the process of amending the Constitution is extraordinarily difficult and time-consuming. There have only been 4 occasions when Congress has successfully used constitutional amendments to reverse Supreme Court decisions (Dred Scott, 14th Amendment). Unsuccessful constitutional amendments can sometimes prod the Court to address neglected issues. Once the Constitution has been ratified, there is no guarantee that the Court will interpret the amendment consistent with the ratifiers’ intent. Even though the 13, 14, 15 Amendments were meant to overturn Dred Scott and protect the rights of blacks, the decision in Plessy was more in line with the radical attitudes that flourished before the Civil War. Although amendments have been unsuccessful, they have the purpose of venting popular and professional resentment toward Court decisions that may even temper future rulings.
Court Packing
“9 old men”, Lochner Court did not agree with FDR’s new deal legislation, so FDR attempted to back the court full of younger justices who would be more likely to support the legislation, FDR’s court packing plan has been the most blatant attempt to try to alter court size to change judicial policy. The Senate rejected FDR’s bill, saying it was “needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle”. However, later decisions in 1937 showed that the Court had become more accepting of New Deal legislation (the switch in time that saved nine)
Withdrawing Jurisdiction
(really limited power) Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, under the Exceptions clause. The exercise of this power, however, must be compliant with the requirements of the 5th amendment to not deny a person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
