U.S. Constitutions Exam #2

1791

The year the bill of rights was ratified

Legislative Power

power to make laws

Executive Power

power to enforce laws

Judicial Power

the power to interpret laws and administer justice.

Separation of Powers

to assign the three powers of government to three separate branches.

Encroach

to take power belonging rightfully to another

Checks and Balances

the constitutions method of granting certain powers to each branch of government while limiting the powers of the others, ensuring that no branch becomes too powerful.

Congress

the name for the legislative branch in the constitution, which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Deliberation

the process of careful consideration and discussion before making a decision or judgment, often used in legislative contexts.

Unitary Executive

having one person be the executive

plural executive

having multiple people be the executive

Inferior Courts

Lower Courts. These have less power than higher courts, which can overturn the rulings of lower courts. Lower federal courts

Good behavior tenure

life time appointment barring impeachment

Jurisdiction

the authority of a court to hear a case and make legal judgments.

Original Jurisdiction

Authority to hear and decide a case for the first time.

Apellate Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to review the decision of a lower court.

Limited Constitution

A constitution that restricts the powers of government and ensures the protection of individual rights.

Writ of Habeas Corpus

a petition brought against a state/government agent who is holding a person in custody that is used to bring the prisoner or other detainee before the court to determine if that persons imprisonment or detention is lawful

bill of attainder

a piece of legislation declaring a party guilty of a crime, and allowing the government to punish the party for the perceived crime.

ex post facto law

a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, criminalizing actions that were legal before the law was made.

Abridge

To restrict

Judicial Review

the power of courts to assess whether a law is in compliance with the Constitution or if its void.

writ of mandamus

An order from a court to a lower government official or court, demanding the official or court to carry out some part of their official duties that has been neglected, or correct an abuse of discretion.

Originialism

A constitutional interpretation approach that emphasizes understanding the text as it was originally intended by its authors.

Living Constitutionalism

an interpretational approach to the constitution according to which the words of the constitution can change in their application to meet changing circumstances

Commerce

trade

Federalist 51

A notable essay written by James Madison that addresses the importance of checks and balances in government to limit government power and protect individual liberties.

• Independent will for each branch:

  1. It is important because it ensures that no branch can dominate or overreach its authority, thereby maintaining a balance of power.

  2. It is accomplished by designing a system of government where each branch has separate powers and the ability to challenge the actions of the others.

• Constitutional means: Particular examples like qualified executive veto and bicameralism to prevent tyranny and protect rights.

Article I of the Constitution

establishes the legislative branch of the U.S. government, outlining the powers and responsibilities of Congress, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Vesting clause: A.1, S.1

A provision in Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution that grants all legislative powers to Congress, emphasizing the separation of powers.

Who elects the members of each house? Proportion of members per state? (A.1, S.2-3)

The members of each house of Congress are elected by the people of their respective states, with the number of representatives in the House based on state population and each state having two senators in the Senate.

Article I of the Constitution age requirements

The Constitution establishes specific age requirements for members of Congress: at least 25 years old for the House of Representatives and at least 30 years old for the Senate.

Article I of the constitution term lengths

The Constitution sets term lengths for Congress members as two years for the House of Representatives and six years for senators, with no limit on the number of terms served.

Article I of the Constitution

• Where do bills of revenue originate? Other bills? (A.1, S.7): Revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, while other bills may originate in either house.

• La-making process (A.1, S.7): The process outlined in Article I, Section 7, details how a bill must be passed by both houses of Congress and then presented to the President for approval or veto.

• Powers (A.1, S.8): taxing, commerce, finances, war, necessary, and proper clause: Article I of the Constitution outlines the powers and responsibilities of the legislative branch, including how bills are created, the requisite age for Congress members, and their term lengths.

• Senates special responsibilities ( A.2, S.2, par. 2): The Senate has unique responsibilities such as confirming presidential appointments, ratifying treaties, and conducting trials for impeached officials.

• Importance of deliberation: The Constitution establishes the procedures and principles that govern the legislative process, including the initiation of revenue bills in the House and the passage of legislation through both houses.

Article II of the Constitution

• Vesting clause (A.2, S.1, Par.1): The executive power is vested in the President of the United States, who serves as the head of state and government. Article II outlines the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the executive branch, including the President's role in enforcing laws and conducting foreign policy.

• Electoral college (A.2, S.1, par.5) what are electors? How are they picked acc to the constitution? How many electors per state?: Each state is allocated electors based on its number of senators and representatives in Congress, with a total of 538 electors nationwide. Electors are typically chosen by political parties and pledged to vote for their party's candidate for President.

• Term length (A.2, S.1, par.1):The President serves a term length of four years and may be re-elected for one additional term, as established in Article II, Section 1. 35 years, natural born citizen.

• commander in chief, treaty making, appointment making (A.2, S.2): The Constitution delineates the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch, particularly focusing on the role of the President. It establishes the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, outlines the process for making treaties, and details the appointment of federal officers.

• take care claws faithfully executed (A.1, S.3): The Constitution outlines the executive powers of the President, who serves as the head of state and government. It details responsibilities such as law enforcement, foreign policy, and the processes for treaty-making and appointments.

Federalist 70

• energy in the executive = element essential for good government. enforcement of laws, protection from foreign threats.

• Unitary (1-person) executive - better for energy. division = problem for energy.

• unitary executive - better for republication responsibility. know who to blame.

• numerous legislature - deliberation

Article III of the Constitution

• Vesting clause (A. III, S. 1): The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress may establish, with judges holding their positions during good behavior.

• Appointment of judges (A. 2, S. 2, par. 2): The President nominates judges, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

• Tenure for good behavior (=life tenure, except in the case of impeachment): Judges serve for life unless impeached, ensuring judicial independence.

• Impeachment ( A. 2, S.4) Only for “high crimes and misdemeanors”: The judicial branch of the U.S. government is defined in Article III of the Constitution, establishing the Supreme Court and lower courts, outlining the appointment process for judges, who serve during good behavior, and the grounds for impeachment.

• salary can’t be diminished ( A. III, S. 1): Judicial salaries cannot be reduced, ensuring financial independence for judges.

• Federal courts jurisdiction: Article III outlines the judicial branch of the U.S. government, establishing the Supreme Court and inferior courts. It defines the appointment process for judges, ensuring they serve for life under good behavior, details impeachment grounds, and protects judicial salaries from reduction.

• Original jurisdiction v. appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: Article III of the Constitution outlines the judicial branch of the U.S. government, defining the Supreme Court, the appointment and tenure of judges, and their jurisdiction.

• Implicit presence of “judicial review”: Article III outlines the judicial branch of the U.S. government, establishing the Supreme Court and inferior courts, defining the appointment and tenure of judges, their jurisdictions, and the process for impeachment, ensuring independence and accountability.

Federalist 78: defense of judicial independence and good behavior tenure

• Judicial independence and impartiality: Federalist 78 argues for the importance of an independent judiciary that is not influenced by political pressures, ensuring judges can uphold the Constitution and interpret laws fairly. The concept of good behavior tenure is emphasized to protect judges from arbitrary removal.

• Judicial independence and the courts role w/in a “limited constitution.:

  1. definition of a limited constitution: Federalist 78 argues that an independent judiciary is crucial for upholding the Constitution and interpreting laws free from political pressures. It emphasizes good behavior tenure to safeguard judges from arbitrary removal, establishing the judiciary's role within a limited framework of government.

  2. the courts in preserving a limited constitution - judicial review: Federalist 78 emphasizes the judiciary's essential role in maintaining a limited constitution, advocating for judicial review to ensure laws conform to constitutional principles. It asserts that an independent judiciary, protected by good behavior tenure, is vital for fair interpretation of laws.

  3. Need for judicial independence for constitution to be preserved: Federalist 78 argues that a strong judiciary is essential for protecting constitutional rights and maintaining the rule of law, emphasizing the necessity of judicial independence and good behavior tenure to prevent political influence.

  4. What’s at stake?: The preservation of individual rights and limits on government power.

Article, Sections 9 & 10; Bill of rights:

• Article, Section 9: Limits on Congress's powers, including prohibitions on suspending habeas corpus, passing ex post facto laws, and imposing taxes on exports. It also prohibits granting titles of nobility.

• Article, Section 10: Restrictions on states, forbidding them from entering treaties, coining money, or imposing duties on imports and exports, among other limitations.

• Amendments 1-10: Bill of Rights. Whose power did they originally restrict? The states? The national government? Both?: Originally, the Bill of Rights aimed to limit the powers of the national government, protecting individual liberties against federal infringement. Later, through the process of incorporation, many provisions were applied to the states as well. The 9th amendments purpose is to protect unenumerated rights, asserting that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny or disparage others retained by the people and the 10th protects states' powers not delegated to the federal government.

Marbury v. Madison

1. Facts of the case:

   • Who are the parties?: William Marbury and James Madison

   • What is the case about?: The landmark Supreme Court case in 1803 that established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Court to invalidate laws and executive actions that conflict with the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison arose from a political dispute over the last-minute appointment of judges by outgoing President John Adams.

   • What are the three legal questions at issue?: Does Marbury have a right to his commission? 2. Does the Court have the authority to review acts of Congress? 3. Is the law that Marbury is relying on constitutional?

   • Who writes the opinion?: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion, establishing judicial review by asserting that it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is.

2. Outline of key points on the decision and reasoning:

   • Courts decision?: The Supreme Court ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission but that the Court could not issue a writ of mandamus as the law he relied on was unconstitutional, thus establishing the principle of judicial review.

   • unconstitutionality of part of judiciary act of 1789 granting Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus

   • Establishment of judicial review: The landmark Supreme Court case in 1803 that established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Court to invalidate laws and executive actions that conflict with the Constitution. It arose from a political dispute over the last-minute appointment of judges.

The necessary and proper clause: Art. I, Section 8, last paragraph

Grants Congress the power to make laws essential for executing its enumerated powers, ensuring flexibility in legislative authority.

Constitution Facts related to the national bank dispute

• no express power to Congress to charter a bank: not among the enumerated powers.

• The necessary and proper clause was appealed to as a constitutional justification for the national bank.

Excerpt from Jefferson on the constitutionality of the bank

• Narrow interpretation of necessary and proper clause: argued that the Constitution should only be interpreted based on its explicit text, contending that Congress did not have the authority to create a national bank because such power was not specifically granted.

• Application to bank controversy: Jefferson believed the federal government should not exercise powers beyond those explicitly stated in the Constitution. He argued that the establishment of a national bank exceeded the enumeration of powers granted to Congress.

McCulloch v. Maryland

1. Facts of the case

   • Who are the parties?: The case involved James McCulloch, a cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the United States, and the state of Maryland, which sought to impose a tax on the bank.

   • What is this case about?: The Supreme Court case addressed the issue of whether Congress had the authority to establish a national bank and whether Maryland could tax it. The ruling affirmed the use of the necessary and proper clause, supporting implied powers of Congress.

   • What are the constitutional questions?: Whether Congress had the authority to establish a national bank under the necessary and proper clause and Whether a state (Maryland) could tax an institution created by Congress, raising questions about state versus federal power.

   • What was the Supreme Courts decision?: The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the authority to establish a national bank under the necessary and proper clause, thereby underscoring the supremacy of federal law over state law. Additionally, the Court held that Maryland could not tax the bank, emphasizing the principle of federal supremacy.

   • Who authored the opinion?: Chief Justice John Marshall

2. broad understanding of the necessary and proper clause

   • “necessary” = useful for bringing about a certain end

   • enumerated powers = ends; necessary and proper clause: any means to these ends

   • what’s at stake: need for a constitution flexible enough to endure: adaptable to crises

   • supporting constitutional evidence

   • application: a bank = a means to carrying out enumerated ends, e.g. lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce

The commerce clause: Art. I, section 8, para. 3

• an enumerated power of congress

• regulation of “commerce” (commerce = trade)

• interstate (between/”among” states) v. intrastate (within states) commerce. Also commerce with the foreign nations and Indian tribes

Wickard v. Filburn

1. Facts of the case:

   • Who are the parties?: The case involved farmer Roscoe Filburn and the federal government, which sought to regulate wheat production on his farm.

   • What is the case about?: The Supreme Court case examined the extent of federal power to regulate agricultural production under the commerce clause. It addressed whether the federal government could regulate wheat production intended for personal use as it could affect interstate commerce.

   • What is the constitutional question?: Whether the federal government had the authority to regulate wheat production under the commerce clause, even if the wheat was grown for personal use and not sold in interstate commerce.

   • What is the courts decision?: The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could regulate wheat production under the commerce clause, even when the wheat was for personal use, as it could indirectly affect interstate commerce.

   • Who wrote the opinion?: Justice Felix Frankfurter

2. Justice Jackson understanding of the commerce clause: The understanding that the federal government can regulate activities that, although not directly related to interstate commerce, may have a substantial economic effect on it. This interpretation broadens the scope of the commerce clause, allowing for more extensive federal regulation.

United States v. Lopez

1. Facts of the case:

   • Who are the parties?: The case involves Alfonso Lopez Jr. and the federal government, which charged him with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

   • What is the case about?: The Supreme Court case examined whether Congress had the authority to regulate firearm possession in school zones under the commerce clause, questioning the limits of federal power.

   • What is the constitutional question?: Whether possession of a firearm in a school zone has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

   • What is the courts decision?: The Supreme Court ruled that Congress lacked authority under the commerce clause to regulate firearm possession in school zones, emphasizing limits on federal power.

   • Who wrote the opinion?: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

2. Justice Rehnquists quealification of the substantial effects doctrine: setting of clearer boundaries:

   • 3 categories of activities congress can regulate under the commerce power

   • channels of interstate commerce

   • instrumentalities of interstate commerce

   • activities that substantially affect interstate commerce

Scalia and Breyer Debate Video

1. What is each Justices Judicial Philosophy?

   • Scalia: Originalism, focusing on the Constitution's text and historical context.

   • Breyer: Pragmatism, emphasizing real-world consequences and the Constitution's principles.

2. What approach does each justice take to interpreting and applying words or phrases like “cruel and unusual” in the constitution?

   • Scalia: interprets it strictly based on historical definitions and the original meaning at the time it was adopted.

   • Breyer: considers evolving standards of decency and societal values to determine meaning.

3. Does the constitution change with time? How does each justice answer this question?

   • Scalia: believes the Constitution should remain unchanged, adhering strictly to its original meaning.

   • Breyer: advocates for a living Constitution approach, allowing for interpretation that adapts to contemporary society.

4. What tools does each justice think most important for deciphering the constitutions meaning?

   • Scalia: looks to the text, history, and precent and tradition

   • Breyer: emphasizes purpose /values and consequences

5. What arguments does each justice make in favor of his own approach over the others? What dangers does each justice identify with the other justices approach?

   • Scalia: argues that originalism preserves the rule of law and prevents judicial activism. He identifies the danger of pragmatic interpretations leading to unpredictable rulings.

   • Breyer: argues that pragmatism allows the law to remain relevant and responsive to societal changes. He identifies the danger of originalism being too rigid and failing to address modern issues.