Midterm Flashcards
(41 cards)
Congress has the constitutional authority to establish a national bank, due to the Necessary and Proper clause which is expansive of congressional authority, and holds unenumerated powers. Maryland CANNOT tax the bank due to Federalism, and the ultimate authority held within the constitution.
McCulloch v. Maryland
The plaintiff has a right to his commission, he can sue for his commission using a writ of mandamus, a writ of mandamus is the correct remedy for this, but the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional, because it expands constitutional powers beyond the allowed appellate jurisdiction in article 3 section 2. Limits on judiciary come from the CONSTITUTION, not from the other branches, “merely judgement”, marshall is savvy with prudentialism.
Marbury v. Madison
Repeal act of 1802 is kept, seemingly reversing Marbury’s holding.
Stuart v. Laird
Introduced the political question doctrine, stating that a redistricting case was justiciable, and it should come down to one person one vote.
Baker v. Carr
Mootness is void if there is a remaining significant injury to the party, in this case, an egregious backpay injury. The speech and debate clause creates immunity for the speaker of the house, but not for the clerk, doorkeeper, and sergeant. The Court noted that the proceedings against Powell were intended to exclude and not expel him from the chamber. That is an important distinction to recognize since the House does have the power under Article I, Section 5 to expel members. However, expulsion was not the purpose of the proceedings in this case. Since the congressman had been lawfully elected by his constituents and since he met the constitutional requirements for membership in the House, the chamber was powerless to exclude him.
Powell v. McCormack
The VRA is constitutional under the self-executing clause of the 15th amendment. The self-executing clause gives substantive power of Congress to interpret and enforce.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach
Literacy tests are constitutional as a framework because they are not inherently discriminatory.
Lassiter v. Northampton
Section 4(e) is a proper exercise of the powers granted to Congress. With Justice William J. Brennan writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that Congress exercised its powers consistent with those afforded it by Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court then concluded that the Supremacy Clause prevented the enforcement of the New York English literacy requirement. Substantive authority of Congress, not a violation of states rights.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Racial barriers to the buying and selling of property are violations of the commerce clause, which states that you can’t discriminate in property
Jones v. Alfred Mayer
The Court held that the Framers intended for Article I Section 4 of the Constitution and the Necessary and Proper Clause to grant the States the power to make the laws that govern elections and for Congress to have the power to alter the laws if necessary. The Court also held that the legislative history surrounding the enactment and enforcement of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments support the role that Congress plays in preventing racial discrimination in the electorate without denying the states their rights. Without evidence that the states use the 21-year-old voting requirement to discriminate based on race in state and local elections, Congress does not have the right to intervene. The Court held that the literacy test bans were constitutional under the enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment.
Oregon v. Mitchell
RFRA is a violation of the Reconstruction Amendment’s self-enforcing clause. The Judiciary is supreme with regards to constitutional interpretation, and Congress has remedial powers to interpret.
City of Boerne v. Flores
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the President did not have the authority to issue such an order. The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property. The Court also held that the President’s military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to labor disputes. The Court argued that “the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”
Youngstown v. Sawyer
Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposes current burdens that are no longer responsive to the current conditions in the voting districts in question. Although the constraints this section places on specific states made sense in the 1960s and 1970s, they do not any longer and now represent an unconstitutional violation of the power to regulate elections that the Constitution reserves for the states. The Court also held that the formula for determining whether changes to a state’s voting procedure should be federally reviewed is now outdated and does not reflect the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years in narrowing the voting turnout gap in the states in question.
Shelby County v. Holder
The President had the power to act. A state of civil war existed de facto after the firing on Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) and the Supreme Court would take this fact into account. Though neither Congress nor the President can declare war against a state of the Union, when states waged war against the United States government, the President was “bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name.”
Prize Cases
The executive branch does not have the power to hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional. Martial law cannot exist where the civil courts are operating.
Ex parte Milligan
Prosecutor cannot be forced to prepare or sign an indictment.
US v. Cox
The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining constitutional questions; no person, not even the president of the United States, is completely above the law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is “demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial.”
US v. Nixon
Special prosecutor is unconstitutional, as is the Ethics in Government Act
In re Sealed
Special prosecutor is constitutional because it is a “limited” position.
Morrison v. Olson
Officers are hierarchically understood in the Constitution
Edmond v. US
No, no. Justice Stephen G. Breyer delivered the opinion for the 9-0 majority. The Court held that a pro forma session does not create a recess long enough to trigger the Recess Appointments Clause. While the term “recess” in the Clause refers both to inter-and intra-session recesses, its legislative history and historical context indicate that the term should be presumed to mean a recess of substantial length. The Court held that the three-day break that occurs during pro forma sessions does not represent a significant interruption of legislative business and therefore cannot justify the exercise of the Clause. Additionally, a pro forma session cannot be viewed as a single, long recess because the Senate retains its capacity to conduct business during such sessions. Because recess appointments made during a recess that was shorter than ten days have been so historically rare, the Court held that ten days was the appropriate presumptive lower limit to place on the exercise of the Clause. The Court also held that the Clause applies to vacancies that occur during a recess as well as those that originally occur before a recess but continue to exist at the time of the recess. Although a plain reading of the Clause does not require such an interpretation, the historical context of the wording favors the more broad reading because a vacancy can be considered a continuing state.
NLRB v. Canning
Recounting the debates of the Constitutional Convention over issues of bicameralism and separation of powers, Chief Justice Burger concluded that even though the Act would have enhanced governmental efficiency, it violated the “explicit constitutional standards” regarding lawmaking and congressional authority.
INS v. Chadha
On their face, literacy tests are not racist.
Lassiter v. Northhampton
