Con Law Test 1

Front 1

Marbury Vs. Madison

Back 1

-It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States
-Judicial Review: Where the court interprets constitution. Interprets in such a way that it can declare acts of congress unconstitutional.
- It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional", a process called judicial review.
-The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.
-This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.
-On March 3, just before his term was to end, Adams, in an attempt to stymie the incoming Democratic-Republican Congress and administration, appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. “Midnight Judges.”
-On February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4–0) decision,[23] that Marbury had the right to his commission but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court. Marshall presented the case as raising three distinct questions:
• Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
• Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy?
• Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy?[24]
Marshall quickly answered the first two questions affirmatively. He found that the failure to deliver the commission was "violative of a vested legal right.”
-Marshalls dilemma was that court issues writ. Madison refuses to comply, court prestige suffers, possible impeachment of marshall.
- Court does not issue write, seen as caving to political pressure, prestige of court suffers.
- Ultimately, Marshall escaped the trap by ruling the provision unconstitutional.

Front 2

Luther Vs. Borden

Back 2

-was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the political question doctrine in controversies arising under the Guarantee Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution
-Martin Luther was part of the Dorr Rebellion, an attempt to overthrow the charter government of Rhode Island that had stymied the efforts of those who wished to broaden the voting rights of state residents. The rebellion began as a political effort but turned violent. Martin Luther was arrested by Luther M. Borden, a state official, who searched his home and allegedly damaged his property. Luther contended that the charter government was not "republican" in nature because it restricted the electorate to only the most propertied classes; because Article Four states that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," Luther argued that the Supreme Court should find that Borden acted without proper authority. In doing so, the Court would necessarily find that the "Dorrite" alternative republican government was the lawful government of Rhode Island, superseding the charter government.
-The Supreme Court found that it was up to the President and Congress to enforce this clause and that, as an inherently political question, it was outside the purview of the Court.
-The ruling established that the "republican form of government" clause of Article Four was non-justiciable, a ruling that still holds today. However, two decades after Luther v. Borden was decided, the Fourteenth Amendment, which included the Equal Protection Clause, was added to the Constitution. Baker v. Carr, in which the Court found that the Court could examine Tennessee's apportionment of legislative districts, was based on the Equal Protection Clause, and many subsequent cases that covered much of the same ground as Luther v. Borden followed suit.

Front 3

Baker Vs. Carr

Back 3

-Malapportionment/Reapportionment
-Equal Protection Case
was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that reapportionment (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that reapportionment of legislative districts is a "political question," and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.
-Having declared redistricting issues justiciable in Baker, the court laid out a new test for evaluating such claims. The Court formulated the famous "one person, one vote" standard under American jurisprudence for legislative redistricting, holding that each individual had to be weighted equally in legislative apportionment; this principle was formally enunciated in the 1964 case Reynolds v. Sims.

Front 4

Walter Nixon Vs. US

Back 4

-Determined that the question of whether the Senate had properly "tried" an impeachmenet was a political questions, and could not be resolved in the Courts.
-US judge Walter Nixon, was convicted of committing perjury before a grand jury, but refused to resign from office even after he had been incarcerated.
-Holding was that the courts may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to a coordinate political branch.
-Important feature of this case is how it divers from Powell Vs. McCormack. In Powell, a grant of discretionary power to Congress was deemed to be justiciable because it require a mere "interpretation" of the Constitution.

Front 5

Threshold Considerations

Back 5

-No advisor opinions
-Standing
-Political Questions
-Mootness
-Deference to administrative agencies
-Avoiding deciding constitutional issue
-Presume constitutionality
-Court imposed factors, Courts only hear cases and controversies.

-Political Questions:
Luther; Banker; Nixon vs. US (1992)

-Standing Cases:
Lujan; Legislative; Macculough vs. maryland; Marshalls Decisions; Powell; Watkins; Schechter; INS.

Front 6

McCullough Vs. Maryland

Back 6

-Oral arguement took 9 days
-The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the U.S. Bank. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.
This fundamental case established the following two principles:
1. The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
2. State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.
The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.
-The court determined that Congress had the power to create the Bank. Chief Justice Marshall supported this conclusion with four main arguments.
-Chief Justice Marshall also determined that Maryland may not tax the bank without violating the Constitution. The Court voided the tax on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Front 7

Powell Vs. McCormick

Back 7

-It answered the question of whether Congress has the authority to exclude from being sworn in and enrolled upon its rolls a person who has been duly elected or appointed by the people or the executive authority of his/her district or state and who otherwise meets the requirements set forth in the United States Constitution for serving in Congress.
-Congress may not in any way alter the qualifications of its members from the exclusive list given in the Constitution (age, length of citizenship, and inhabitant of state where elected). Therefore, "excluding" a Congressman by a two-thirds majority vote is not allowed although the Constitution allows expulsion by a two-thirds vote.
-Powell represented harlem, black men and was influential because of seniority.
-Southern democrats voted to oppose Powell being Chairman of Education and Labor committee.
-Powell was corrupt and spent committee funds on island, vacations and such.
-Congress voted not to swear him in upon reelection.
-Special election can be called to fill an empty seat in house of reps.
-Powell wins this, but is excluded again.
-Runs again in 1968, finally seated in 1969.
-Sues for pay he didn't receive while exclueded from house, sues speaker of the house.
-Is not a political question because it is in the text of the constitution that a member can be expelled-not excluded. Not political because it is a clear case of interpreting the constitution.

Front 8

Watkins Vs. US

Back 8

-John Watkins was convicted under 2 U.S.C. § 192, for failing to answer questions while posed as a witness relating to people he may have known to be communist.
Watkins stated he did not wish to answer these questions, as they were outside of the scope he had been called upon, and of the committee.
As a result of the appeal, a panel decided 6-1 to overturn Watkins' conviction. Chief Justice Earl Warren supported Watkins' views, saying that the power of the United States Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations, and that there was no authority given to expose individuals' private affairs.
-Watkins was convicted unconstitutionally, as he was not allowed fair process to determine whether he could refuse to answer questions posed as a witness, by a committee.
-Marilyn Monroe called to investigate communism- played the dumb blonde before the national committee.

Front 9

Schechter Poultry Vs. US

Back 9

-The government claimed the Schechters sold sick poultry, which has led to the case becoming known as "the sick chicken case". Also encompassed in the decision were NIRA provisions regarding maximum work hours and a right of unions to organize.
-Chief Justice Hughes wrote for a unanimous Court in invalidating the industrial "codes of fair competition" which the NIRA enabled the President to issue. The Court held that the codes violated the constitutional separation of powers as an impermissible delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. The Court also held that the NIRA provisions were in excess of congressional power under the Commerce Clause.
-Interstate Commerce:
-Affirmative authority required: Must be authority in constitution that allows congress to pass, and the law cannot violate an existing provision of the constitution.
-Schechter is argued by roosevelt's lawyers as being "interstate" chickens born in New Jersey and sold in NY. Shcecters lawyers said they were intrastate chickens, so congress ruling thereon would be violating 10th amendment.
- Code of Fair competition: Supposed to benefit labor as well as business. Supposed to regulate practices in that particular business or industrial grouping. Supposed to set up a minimum wage for labor and maximum hours. Supposed to set a floor for minimum prices.
-President would almost always sign the code of fair competition and once signed, that code became law.

Front 10

INS Vs. Chadha

Back 10

-Chadha was going to be deported, had no country who would let him back in, deportation suspended for extreme hardship
-House suspends suspension saying it would notncause extreme hardship
-House is vetoing an act of executive branch
-Congress is violating presentment clause by trying to pass bill deporting chadha, also violates bicameralism
-196-212 laws have legislative vetos in them, declared unconstitutional

Front 11

GT:
Clinton Vs. NY

Back 11

-s a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. The decision of the Court, in a six-to-three majority, was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens

Front 12

Line Item Veto Act

Back 12

The authority of a chief executive to delete part of a bill passed by the legislature that involves taxing or spending. The legislature may override a veto, usually with a two-thirds majority of each chamber.
-According to the Supreme Court, the line item veto is unconstitutional because it violates the Presentment and Bicameral Clauses of the Constitution (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) that vests Congress with "all legislative powers." Also, the "Non-delegation Doctrine" holds that one branch can't transfer its constitutional powers to another branch or entity.

Front 13

GT:
Myers Vs. US

Back 13

-was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body.
-cant restrict removal power of pres when dealing with appointees

Front 14

GT:
Morrison Vs. Olsen

Back 14

was a case that went before the Supreme Court of the United States. By a 7 to 1 margin, the Court ruled that the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the sole dissenting opinion.
-Special prosecutor vs. Independent

Front 15

GT:
US Vs. Nixon

Back 15

-was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. It was a unanimous 8-0 ruling involving President Richard Nixon and was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president.

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote the opinion for a unanimous court, joined by Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Lewis F. Powell.

Associate Justice William Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee, recused himself as he had a prior association with the Nixon administration.
-executive privelage, didnt work due to grand jury criminal investigation, interests here outweigh exec priv interests

Front 16

GT:
Clinton Vs. Jones

Back 16

-was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.
-Did not want freedom from suit, just temporary freedom during presidency.

Front 17

GT:
In Re Neagle

Back 17

-was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined the question of whether the Attorney General of the United States had authority to appoint U.S. Marshals as bodyguards to Supreme Court Justices.
-if no law for marshall to appt court justice, is marshall acting under authority of us gvt when he kills attempted assassin? Courts rcognition of implied pres powers

Front 18

ALL OF IT:
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. Vs. Sawyer

Back 18

-The United States was in the Korean War in 1950 when troops from North Korea invaded the Republic of Korea. President Harry Truman sent troops to South Korea without asking for a Congressional declaration of war on North Korea — albeit with a United Nations resolution.
-The President did not have the inherent authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. DC District Court affirmed.
-Presidents seizure not supported by act of congress, congress has refused to authorize seizures. Thus, not part of executive power.
Not part of commander in chief power. Not z theater of war. Not pzrt of executive power which means to carry out laws passed by congress.
Concerned about effect on korean war, steel workers threaten strike.
Case goes to supreme court- loses. Unconstitutional.
Truman surprised since chief justice is a poker buddy, and said that sc would support takeover of steel industry- CJ dissents, still lose case.
Advisory opinion- not a real case or controversy.
Truman tried to claim commander inchief because of korea war, but that power doesnt include internal domestic issues.
Truman should have implemented taft-hartley act- labor dispute that cannot be settled(essential to us to resolve), should have implemented cooling off period- 60-90 day ban on strikes during which mediation is attempted.
Almost all labor unions at the time were democratic- taft hardley seen as republican anti union legislation.
Important concurring opinion- most important in 20th century?-
Jackson- when pres acts pursuant to am implied or actual authorization of congress, authority is at maximum.- probably constitutional
When pres acts absent either congressional grant or denial of authority, zone of twilight.- maybe constitutional
When pres acts incompatible with will of congress, power lowest ebb.- probably unconstitutional

^Question of when a president is acting under constitutional authority. Guideline for measuring constitutionality of pres's action. Good tool, but only useful for domestic matters.

Front 19

Prize Cases

Back 19

Greer
Civil war era- Lincoln acting to maintain union once elected
Blockade on southern ports to strangle commerce with europe- block cotton trade to england/france- try to force down insurrection with union navy
Congress not in session at the time- acts solely under own authority
Can you blockade ports without declaration of war? No congressional approval or declaration of war- DoW would be bad politics, would legitimize confederacy. Would have been a clusterfuck, europeans would have esablished diplomatic relations with confederates.
Jefferson Davis sends secret envoy to england with message offering end to slavery in exchange for recognition as own power.

Front 20

US Vs. Curtis Wright

Back 20

was a United States Supreme Court case involving principles of both governmental regulation of business and the supremacy of the executive branch of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs.
-, pres essentially uncontrolled actor inforeign affairs(not true for domestic affairs

Front 21

Ex Parte Milligan

Back 21

was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional.
-Open Court Rule

Front 22

Korematsu Vs. US

Back 22

was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II.
-National Security Exception

Front 23

SA:
Political Questions Doctrine

Back 23

-doctrine is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political question. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable.
-The doctrine has its roots in the historic Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison
-The leading Supreme Court case in the area of political question doctrine is Baker v. Carr (1962).[3] In the opinion written for Baker, the Court outlined six elements of the political question doctrine. These include:

A "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political branch."
A "lack of judicially discoverable standards."
The "impossibility for a court independent resolution without expressing a lack of respect for a coordinate branch of the government."
The "impossibility of deciding the issue without an initial policy decision, which is beyond the discretion of the court."
An "unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision."
The "potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question."
-Cases:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the origin of the phrase.
Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) – Guarantee of a republican form of government is a political question to be resolved by the President and the Congress;
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) – Mode of amending federal Constitution is a political question;
Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) – Apportionment of Congressional districts is a political question [Overruled by Baker v. Carr];
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) – Apportionment of state legislatures in which the court ruled that this was not a political question;
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) – Congressional authority to exclude members who have met qualifications to serve is not a political question;
Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979) – Presidential authority to terminate treaties is a political question;
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) – Constitutionality of one house legislative veto is not a political question;
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) – Senate authority to try impeachments and impeachment are political questions.

Front 24

SA:
Original Jurisdiction

Back 24

-the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a court has the power to review a lower court's decision.
-

Front 25

SA:
Legislative Veto

Back 25

-exists in governments that separate executive and legislative functions if actions by the executive can be rejected by the legislature.

Front 26

SA:
Necessary and Proper Clause

Back 26

also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause[1]) is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:
“ The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer there of.
-McCulloch v. Maryland in American jurisprudence can be seen in cases generally thought to simply involve the Commerce Clause.

Front 27

SA:
Marshall's interpretation of the 10th ammendment

Back 27

-In McCulloch v. Maryland, 5 Marshall rejected the proffer of a Tenth Amendment objection and offered instead an expansive interpretation of the necessary and proper clause 6 to counter the argument. The counsel for the State of Maryland cited fears of opponents of ratification of the Constitution about the possible swallowing up of states' rights and referred to the Tenth Amendment to allay these apprehensions, all in support of his claim that the power to create corporations was reserved by that Amendment to the States. 7 Stressing the fact that the Amendment, unlike the cognate section of the Articles of Confederation, omitted the word ''expressly'' as a qualification of granted powers, Marshall declared that its effect was to leave the question ''whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair construction of the whole instrument.'' 8