NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Two foundations of our government, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. -Individual rights from God, give up some liberty to the state. -States do not give up their own sovereignty. -absolute power corrupts. fed. v. state Central govt of seperated powers, the three branches of limited and separate power. 1 st Attempt, the Articles of Confederation. The constitution protects individuals from the government, places restrictions on the govt. I Discussion of the Supreme Court and other federal courts.
II Governmental bodies created by the constitution A. Struggle between Federal v. Federal B. Struggle between Federal v. State III Struggles between the Govt (state and / or federal) v. Individual I Discussion of the Supreme Court and other federal courts.
Article III creates the Supreme Court. The president nominates the judges and Congress approves the nomination. Life tenure for federal judges. Congress decides how many justices on the federal court.
The Supreme Court divides its authority between original and appellate jurisdiction. II Governmental bodies created by the constitution A. Struggle between Federal v. Federal MARBURY v.
MADISON (power grab or seizure of power by Marshall for the ct. ) 1788 -the const. was ratified. G. W. brought in a Federalist Congress and judges for 8 years.
Adams and Marshall kept the Federalists alive in the Judiciary. -Jefferson issued and executive order to Madison not to deliver the Commission for justice of the peace to Marbury. -Marbury wants writ of mandamus from supreme ct. Is this a proper case for the issue of a writ of mandamus? Yes. - A federal officer is refusing to perform a mandatory duty (not a discretionary duty-in which the court cant issue mandamus). -It is a ministerial, mandatory duty of delivering the commission. Marshall goes further as to whether the supreme ct. should issue the writ. -Marbury presents statutory authority that he is in the right ct. The Judiciary Act of 1789.
Congress created the act. p 4 d. Whether Congress has the power to give this jurisdiction to the Ct? -Marshall cites the Const. Art. III. Sup.
ct has original and appellate jurisdiction 2 (2). -Madison is not a public minister nor a diplomat. Sup. ct does not have original jurisdiction. The statute and the Const.
conflict. Congress v. Const. -Const. superior to any law made by Congress. -Const. is to be the supreme law, not a federal statute. Supremacy Clause- Article 6 sub. 2 p. 1447 -Sup.
Ct. declared the act (Judiciary Act) of congress unconstitutional. Judicial Review- the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. -Marshall should have interpreted the statute to avoid constitutional conflict. p 4 d. The Judiciary Act. -Gives the sup.
ct. authority to issue writs of mandamus only in regard to appellate jurisdiction. -There is nothing wrong with the statute. Marbury should have gone to the lower ct. and then appealed if it ruled against him. It was necessary to hold the statute unconstitutional. -Marshall said Sup.
ct. can issue writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction. -Oath to uphold the Constitution by the three branches. The Act is constitutional. The branches are co-equal, have as much power as judiciary. -The other branches silently agreed w/ the sup.
ct. about the unconstitutionality of the act. No general agreement or majority rules. Anti-majoritarian rule- the weight of 5 judges v. everyone else. Exception in history where what the fed.
ct. said wasnt followed: the Cherokee Indian Cases -land was given to the Indians by Federal Treaty. State of Georgia violated treaty. Pres. had the power to enforce the court order but didnt. -Sup. ct.
cannot enforce its own laws, no purse (Congress), and no sword (president). -Sup. ct. infallible because they are final, the ct. looks at the case last. -Sup. ct. can declare acts and laws of Congress and states unconstitutional.
SIX WAYS OF CHANGING MARSHALLS RULING 1. Get Congress to issue a writ of impeachment v. a judge or judges. -Jefferson and Madison wanted to impeach Marshall, but couldnt even impeach Chase. 2. Get Congress to increase the number of judges to overturn the ruling. Court packing Plan of F. D.
R. Amend the const. Congress has to initiate the amendment, 2 / 3 of Congress to propose, and of the states to ratify. Dont re-elect the pres.
who appointed those judges... Art. III- make an act, exceptions to appellate jurisdiction as Congress may make. Change the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme ct. Criticize the decision of the court by the media, which might make them change their views. -Article III- no federal cts. of general juris. - limitation on what is given to fed.
cts. Federal Courts have Judicial Power over: All cases under constitutional issues, federal law, or treaties (Federal question jurisdiction. ) Ambassadors, international matters, public ministers, and consuls. Cases involving the U. S.
as a plaintiff or def. citizens of two different states diversity of citizenship. Congress cant grant more power that Art. III already gave, but it can take away power. -case based on a federal treaty. State court, state case, interpreted the treaty. loser says it was decided incorrectly and it goes up to Sup.
ct. -federal question jurisdiction, sup. ct. has jurisdiction. -state court does not want to follow the sup. ct.
s mandate. -The sup. ct. has jurisdiction, by way of the Judiciary Act -State court says Congress did not have the power to give the Sup. Ct. that power found in Judiciary act, which then violates Article III. State says sup.
ct. has jurist. only if the lower ct. was a fed. ct. -therefore, only if the case arose in the federal system. The sup.
ct. has no authority if the case arose in a state ct. , since there is no mention of state courts in Art. III. -Article III states the Sup. Ct.
can decide all cases. State cts. have to decide const. issues. state judges can come to different conclusions about the same law. Federal law should be uniform. -Fed.
ct. has the last word on whether the state ct. s ruling is correct or not. -the lottery is illegal in Virginia. Cohen is a lottery agent who is licensed in D.
C. under federal statute. Appeals to highest ct. in Virginia. Writ to sup. ct.
Federal question jurisdiction, issue is of a federal law. -For appellate jurisdiction, there is diversity jurisdiction, citizen of one state v. another state. -two grounds for jurisdiction in Art. III. In criminal matters, the sup. ct.
has appellate jurisdiction under the constitution for due process violations. Limitations on Judicial Power: -cases or controversies, or else an order of a fed. ct. is not valid.
there has to be actual contending litigants there has to be concrete injury that can be fixed (injury-in-fact). fed. cts. cannot issue advisory opinions.
Separation of powers, it would be like interfering with another co-equal branch. Article III governs the jurisdiction of the federal courts. there may also be other jurisdiction in article III, but Congress has not granted that authority. Congressional laws are superior to state law. to have standing, the doctrine of case or controversy must be present.
unconstitutionality and injury-in-fact. federal question in state court- the judge can test the constitutionality of the federal law in a state court. the state ct. judge looks at two federal laws, the constitution and the federal statute in deciding. Can a state judge declare a federal statute unconstitutional in a state court. Yes, he swore an oath to uphold the constitution. -there must be uniformity, a federal statute has to be uniform in every state.
if federal question jurisdiction is present and the state is a party, then appellate jurisdiction is given to the supreme ct. not original jurisdiction. To bring a case to a federal court as a plaintiff, you need: standing- an injury (solid, personal, concrete injury) Article III states no federal court jurisdiction unless it is a case or controversy and there is an aggrieved person. -the sup. ct.
cannot review an advisory opinion of the ct. of appeals because it is not a case or controversy. the sup. ct. cannot review the law because of the separation of powers, it would be interfering with the other branches. -the plaintiff is suing on behalf of the black public school children. -white private segregated schools get a tax exemption by the IRS. IRS says its not discriminating.
the tax exemption does not directly discriminate. the plaintiffs want integration if public schools, not private. giving exemptions to all private schools includes desegregated schools. the injury is stigmatic. - all blacks are inferior, reflects on the whole race.
the only people who have standing are the black people in that district that want to enter the private tax exempt school. injury = lack of integrated education. Even now they dont have standing, because they are not being injured by the IRS. in order to have injury-in-fact, the person you are suing has to be the cause of injury.
therefore, an order of the court cannot redress the injury. plaintiffs says it will because private schools will be less affordable without the tax exemption, discourage desegregation, because the people from the private school will go to public schools. the ct. says no to this argument. plaintiffs have not shown that the amount of deduction would cause that hypo, too speculative. Under Article III, the bedrock of case or controversy doctrine is the separation of powers.
Doctrine of Prudential Limitation: judicially self-imposed limits. the court will refuse to take the case, if the injury sought wont justify their interference with the other branches. 3 rd party standing- the right to raise another persons right, even if it also hurts you, youre hurt by a violation of his constitutional rights. the ct. will most likely not give standing because the person whose rights are violated has the best case. prudential limitation is under article III jurisdiction. the ct.
can allow the 3 rd party jurisdiction later on if the litigant before the court has just as good a position or the only position to raise the right of the 3 rd party. example: poor women who want abortions dr. who renders abortion brings the case. no standing?
the dr. has standing, injury of loss of money. let the dr. raise the right of poor women, they will never bring it. Prudential limitation is not an article III limitation, it is a 3 rd party limitation. U.
S. v. SCRAP- R. R. charges too much for the shipping of scrap metals. -standing with regard to objecting to a federal agency. -any person aggrieved by a federal agency may sue in federal ct. -Congress wants people to be able to sue if they have problems with the Federal agency as long as they are aggrieved. Need the same standing as in Art.
III -plaintiffs claim is that the price of shipping is too high, therefore recycling is too expensive, and the park is polluted, this is not injury-in-fact. - standing requires causation, a remote chain of causation. - this is too speculative, there is no causation. - Aesthetic injury is enough injury to satisfy injury-in-fact. SIMON v. EASTERN KENTUCKY WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION -poor people v. I.
R. S. for giving tax deductions to hospitals who treat poor people for nothing. -plaintiffs want the I. R. S. to take the tax exemptions away, and than it give it back, when the hospitals treat them for nothing. -ct.
said no standing, it is too speculative to say tax deductions will allow the hospitals to treat poor people for nothing. - the dissent - says the causation here is still clearer than that of SCRAP. - this is not an Art. III case, it has nothing to do with the limitation. SIERRA CLUB v. MORTON- the club wants to object to a ruling that allows a ski resort to destroy the park. -injury-in-fact is not present in this case. - plaintiffs alleged that any of its members who go to the park, suffer aesthetic injury. -the club is the plaintiff in this case, not the members. The organization can sue for its members, but the members have to be injured. -if the club sues then there must be a relationship between the purpose of the club and the injury suffered by the members. - Federal law that women will receive more S. S.
money than men, and that if anyone objects, no one gets the money. -plaintiff is a man, who but for his gender, would be getting the extra money. - he has no standing, because the ct. cannot redress the injury. Since the man objected he will not get any money, regardless of what the ct. says. -Equal treatment is the claim he should have made, because if he wins then no one gets the money. -the ct. could redress that injury, therefore he would have standing.
Standing: the power of any federal ct. to take a case. -state cts. can render advisory opinions. The supreme ct. is an anti-majoritarian body that can strike down a law everybody likes and declare it unconstitutional. - the ct. is not anti-majoritarian when it strikes down a statute which violates a higher law (the constitution) -the constitution is not anti-majoritarian, it was ratified by all the states. - the constitution makes a law invalid. - there is no provision in the constitution that makes a statute / law unconstitutional.
The sup. Ct. can just declare it unconstitutional -the ct. can go beyond interpreting to revising the law, and this is when the sup. Ct. is anti-majoritarian.
P. 1448 - the 3 rd amend. -Quartering Act. Look at the spirit of the constitutional amend, not only the words, to see if it is still valid and constitutional. P. 1419 LUJAN v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE - there was a federal law that a committee had to review the effect of a project on the endangerment of a species before money could be expended for that project. - the review was limited to projects within the U.
S. Outside the U. S. review was not required. - do the defenders of Wildlife have standing to object? - Congress said that under the Administrative Procedure Act, only an aggrieved party has standing. -this federal statute stated that any person can bring an action. There is a conflict between the two fed. acts. - A person is needed to represent the wildlife. - ct.
said D. O. W. have no standing because there is no case or controversy. - plaintiffs allege that Congress gave them standing to sue in fed. ct. to make sure the law is properly enforced. - ct.
stated that there was no injury-in-fact to the plaintiffs. All the ct. can do is declare the law of congress unconstitutional. -under Art. III, no matter who the suit is against, there is no standing without an injury to redress. - any person who has injury can sue, even aesthetic injury. Congress can create a new right, the violation of which would cause injury and allow the plaintiff to have standing.
Such as the right to accurate information. The injury would be in not having the correct info. Congress did not create standing that didnt exist, it just created a new right. P. 143 FEC. v. AKINS -Congress created the public rights for voters to have information about the candidates.
Any voter has a right to information, the violation of the right would create an injury and would require a remedy. A voter has standing for the delusion of his vote. -Congress was spending the tax-payers money on programs to reduce infant mortality. -the states were receiving the money. -the (plaintiffs) tax-payers claim that there is no authority in the const. to spend money. -do tax-payers have the right to object to Congress spending. -sup. Ct.
said plaintiffs do not have standing because the injury is to minuscule. Their contribution is to small to justify a suit. -this doesnt mean that tax-payers cant object to federal spending. There is a difference between regulatory and pure spending. The tax-payer can object to two things: -tax-payer objects to money to religious parochial schools, therefore an objection to the spending of the tax revenue. -the ct. states that to have standing, the plaintiff needs to allege the nature of the constitutional infringement. -plaintiff states the spending is forbidden by the const. in the Establishment Clause, which forbids spending.
It acts as a specific limitation on Congress spending power. -the history of this clause was to prohibit the govt from building a U. S. church. -the tax-payer has standing if he can allege the money is being spent for something that is forbidden in the constitution. -the question is how strict will the ct. be in limiting the tax-payers ground? VALLEY FORGE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE v. AMERICANS FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE -the only people who can object to federal spending are the people not receiving the money because they suffer the injury. -the govt was giving property (not money) to the seminary. -plaintiffs claim violation of Establishment Clause.
Use the two prong test from First. -the plaintiff is objecting to the spending of the tax revenue. -have to allege a violation of constitution. -ct. says the tax-payer has no standing. -it is not a Congressional Act, it is an executive agency that is giving them the property -it has nothing to do with spending authority. It is distribution of property under the Property Clause. -It is not the same thing as pure spending which would violate the Establishment Clause. -plaintiff claims redistricting is a violation of the equal protection law. If you live in that district, you are adversely affected.
a person can go into federal ct. and get a declaratory judgement that an abortion al act is unconstitutional, if the case is ripe enough. -an organization wanting an injunction against a spy following it at public meetings is an unripe case, no case or controversy present, only a threat of an unspecified harm. Mootness: a genuine case or controversy can turn into a moot case, when the remedy has no affect on the litigant. Ex. Roe v. Wade. -A moot case in prudential power will not take. -The moodiness doctrine is mitigated if: 1.
The case is capable of repetition but evading review or 2. The same litigants are present but it is evading review to the same litigants. The federal courts do not have the power to hear a case just because it is in Article III. Affirmative congressional action and enumeration in Article are needed to grant federal courts jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is limited to case or controversy w/ standing and injury.
The doctrine of capable of repetition but evading review, allows the court to rule on Roe v. Wade. This is all within the prudential discretion of the supreme court. Doctrine: Adequate and independent state ground for the states decision, then theres no ground for the Supreme ct. to take the case other than for a federal question. Ex.
Gun seizure violates the 4 th Amend. Of N. Y. Const. & U.
S. const. The State court can interpret its own constitution to give greater weight than that of the U. S. const, prosecutor still loses on N. Y.
cons. -Sup. Ct. cannot say the Ct. of Appeals interpreted the N. Y.
const. wrong, unless its interpretation violates the U. S. constitution. Ct. of appeals can grant more rights, not less. - 11 th Amend.
Took away fed. Cts power to have jurisdiction of state v. state, cit. Of state v. other state, etc. -This was changed by article III in EX PARTE v. YOUNG -R.
R. v. the state in fed. Ct. This is not an action against the state of Minnesota, the atty. General of Minnesota. -therefore it may proceed in federal ct.
w / an injunction for violation of 14 th amend. no state shall deny, not atty. General. Supreme ct. doesnt care. -As long as the individual is named and not the state (hence state agency), you will get into federal ct, as long as the remedy you seek is an INJUCTION! ! ! ! Enabling clause of the 14 th Amend.
grants authority to Congress to legislate under the Equal Protection Clause. It tells the states not to discriminate on the basis of gender. -it was ratified by the states. Its OK to sue in fed. Ct. for an action under the 14 th amend. For money. -Congress passes overtime law to states.
States claim that the 11 th am. Was passed before the Commerce clause Art. 1 8, therefore the clause is limited by the 11 th Amendment. PENNSYLVANIA v. UNION GAS - as long as Congress intent makes it clear that the state court is to bring its claim in federal ct. in the legislation. SEMINOLE TRIBE v.
FLORIDA - now Congress says no, overrules Penn v. Union Gas. -Congress commerce clause is stopped by the 11 th amend. for suing in fed. Ct. for money. -Pass a federal statute that under the commerce clause an injured citizen can sue the state in state ct. -States have sovereign immunity, states cannot be sued without their consent. This doctrine pre-existed the Constitution.
ALDEN v. MAINE - for the state sovereign immunity. Political question cases- political process and voting, political remedy. -a fed ct. cannot take political question cases. NIXON v. U.
S. - federal judges have tenure for life, they have to be impeached to be removed. -Nixon charged with false statements under oath. Went to prison and still collected his salary. -Congress appointed a committee, not the whole senate to investigate. -Art. I- Senate shall have the sole power to impeach. - Sup. Ct. said its a political question, and cannot get involved. - Policy cts. Should not get involved if judges get impeached.
POWEL v. McCORMACK - there is a textual commitment in the const. to another branch in Art. I -Political question, Art. 1 5, the House shall judge the qualifications of its members Art. I 2 re: age, -Political question = 1. Textual commitment shown in none of the business of fed.
ct. ? 2. Baker v. Carr- unde representation of the legislative districts with differing population Remedy - is that the districts have to be redrawn. - it was for the legislature and not the judge to redraw - no judicially manageable standards (ultimately the ct. can manage this) - issue an order to legislature to redistrict - not a political question. 1 person 1 vote. Same number of people in each district. Political Question: 1.
the time the amendment was passed. 3. can the pres. decide that a treaty is no longer in effect. Recognition power of the president to recognize a foreign country. 4. The training of the National guard, power of Congress textually committed. 5. Power of Congress in deciding the jurisdiction of the fed.
cts. Congress can take away appellate jurisdiction from the sup. ct. Art.
III with such exceptions as Congress may make. EXPARTE v. Mccardle (1869) Mccardle is a writer. Pass a law removing military cases from the jurisdiction of sup.
ct. or federal ct. -Lower fed. cts were never given appellate jurisdiction by Congress in regards to Criminal cases. - Congress can take away and / or grant to the lower fed. cts. (districts & circuit cts. ), because they were not necessary, but created by Congress under Art. III. -Certioriari is limited to two attempts. - In cases...
Free research essays on topics related to: establishment clause, federal courts, tax payers, article iii, commerce clause
Research essay sample on Establishment Clause Article Iii
