Modalities of interpretation correct answers Textual - words of the con
Structural - how the con. fits together (separation of powers)
Historical - Original intent of the frmaers. (original meaning and traditions) (interpreted in accordance with history or background)
Doctrine/precedent - what t...
Constitutional Law || with Error-free Solutions.
Modalities of interpretation correct answers Textual - words of the con
Structural - how the con. fits together (separation of powers)
Historical - Original intent of the frmaers. (original meaning and traditions) (interpreted in
accordance with history or background)
Doctrine/precedent - what the court's have generally decided
Ethical/National values/moral - Moral values
Prudential/practical/pragmatic- What are the consequences of the ruling? (pragmatic
consequences)
Three functions of the constitution correct answers Sets up limited enumerated powers
Article 1: sets out congress and grants them power to legislate and make laws.
Article 2: executive branch, President, qualifications: Commander in chief, veto, appointments,
treaties etc.
Article 3: Judicial branch, creates the SC, defines SC jurisdiction
Marbury v. Madison correct answers First decision to declare a federal law unconstitutional
Established principle of judicial review - ability of courts to engage in review of legislative and
executive actions
SC has the power to review the constitutionality of the other branches
The judiciary can compel the executive what to do if it concerns an administrative duty that the
prez. owes
Constitution is regulatory and limits congress
Constitution is regulatory and imposes meaningful limits on the government
Article 3 limits judicial power - court cannot exceed the constraints of article 3 even if congress
says it can
Judiciary can compel executive action of those things that are ministerial (when there is a duty
owed to some person)
Holding: marbury loses out b/c scotus said they couldn't rule on the case b/c they only had
appellate jurisdiction and the case should have been in the lower court first. However section 13
was unconstitutional b/c he should not have been allowed to file directly in the SC.
reasoning: Appointments never got delivered.
Marshall makes an ethical argument
Marshall's statement in Marbury v. Madison that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the
judicial department to say what the law is," is perhaps the most oft-cited passage in the opinion.
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee correct answers The supreme court has the power to review state court
decisions.
,Article 3 says the judicial power shall be vested into one supreme court and judicial power
includes reviewing determinations of federal questions
Sct. makes a textual argument (power vested in ONE supreme court) must hear all cases
Theorizes that S. Ct can hear cases from state court
Supremacy clause correct answers Constitution is the supreme law of the land
Uniformity of decision correct answers Needs to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of
federal law
For a state decision to go to the SC it must be a federal issue
Federal issue correct answers Statute, treaty, compact between states, administrative regulation,
constitutional issue etc.
SC can't review state court decision concerning state law
Adequate state grounds correct answers If there are adequate and independent state grounds for a
decision the SC cannot review it
State court could have been totally wrong on the federal issue
4 corners - not adequate and independent if they didn't in the four corners of the document
specifically state that they weren't relying on state law
Virginia state cort. ruled on 2 state grounds (fed treaty does not apply, you didn't raise the federal
treaty properly
Adequate means the state law part would sustain judgment.
Independent - want a plain statement of independence if there is some plain meaning
Justiciability doctrine correct answers Places a limit on the federal judicial power
determines which matters the FC can hear and which must be dismissed
Prohibition against advisory opinions, standing, ripeness, mootness, and PQ doctrine
two limitations of the Justic. doctrine correct answers Must be an actual case or controversy
(must be true lawsuits between individuals with a personal stake in the outcome) to achieve some
personal right or remedy
Prudential - policy goes against judicial review sometimes
Prohibition against advisory opinions correct answers Actual dispute between litigants - cannot
be a request for advice
, substantial likelihood judgment will have some effect in favor of P
The FC cannot issue advisory opinions
Advis. opinion: lawsuit that seeks the court's opinion on a question and asks them to render a
declaratory judgment (essentially a request for advice)
Arguments against Advisory opnions:
Textual - case and controversies
Structural - separation of powers
Precedent/history
prudential
Waste of courts time
If the SC made advisory opinions it would erode their authority. They would be making laws
instead of congress. It would violate the separation of powers.
To avoid being an AOpinion: Must be an actual controversy, between adverse litigants, that have
an interest in the outcome, court's decision must have possibility to bring a change or effect.
Standing correct answers Determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring
matter for adjudication or challenge some form of government action.
You must ask: WHO is the proper party to bring the lawsuit?
Elements:
Injury in fact: must be actual or imminent, concrete and particularized
Causation: fairly traceable to defendant's conduct
Redressability: decision will likely redress P's injury
Injury in fact correct answers actual or imminent - cannot be hypothetical
Cannot be someday,injury must have happened. A mere interest in the problem is not enough
(Lujan v. defenders)
Concrete and particularized - certain types of injuries (cannot be harm to society) - can be money
damages, civil rights violation, unconstitutional tax under establishment clause (Flash v. Cohen),
any common law injury, physical injury, injunctive remedy
Generalized grievance - must be more than a complaint that the gov. if not following the law.
Frothingham v. Melon (injury shared with citizens)
Causation correct answers Must be fairly traceable to D's conduct and not some third party
d's conduct must have caused the injury
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur FullyFocus. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour 13,23 €. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
