Development Study Guide Exam #1

mootness

there is no longer an actual controversy between the parties in a court case, and any ruling by the court would have no actual or practical impact

Roe v. Wade

what court case is an exception to mootness?

ripeness

have to wait to decide on a case until the case has fully developed

habeas corpus

a writ that protects individuals against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment; used to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary executive power

stare decisis

holds that lower courts should honor precedent decisions/cases; “stand by deciding matters”

writ of certiorari

bringing up the lower court’s decision; the lower court’s decision is what we normally agree with

memorandum decisions

they looked at it, thought it was simple, and they say yes or no (there is no opinion or dissent)

judicial review

SCOTUS has the authority to determine the constitutionality of act of the executive and legislative branches

Marbury v. Madison

what case established judicial review?

Marbury v. Madison (1803) - description

expanded the power of SCOTUS by establishing its right to overturn acts of Congress (judicial review)

Madison refused to deliver the commission of Marbury, but SCOTUS didn’t order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via the writ of mandamus

the executive and legislative branches and the states as well as federal courts

what does judicial review have control over?

writ of mandamus

an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion; power to issue this came from the Judiciary Act of 1789

demurrer

an objection that an opponent’s point is irrelevant or invalid, while granting the factual basis of the point

general demurrer

challenges a broader problem with a pleading that affect all of the claims brought

specific demurrer

objects to a particular problem with the details of pleading, most commonly the failure to claim sufficient facts for a cause of action

amicus curiae brief

briefs written by individuals or groups who are not directly involved in a legal case, but have expertise or insight to offer a court to assist in making its decision; you help SCOTUS fill out a brief with how you as an association think this case should be filed

so SCOTUS doesn’t have to listen to things they don’t want to

why do we have the Methods of Judicial Restraint?

doctrine of strict necessity

the Court has repeatedly declared that it will decide constitutional issues only if strict necessity compels it to do so; courts try to avoid a constitutional question

doctrine of saving construction

before the court can determine constitutionality, they must determine what the statute means = “statutory construction”

presumption of constitutionality

we hope and pray the legislature knew what they were doing and wouldn’t pass an unconstitutional law (we presume the laws we pass are constitutional)

we don’t automatically assume it is constitutional

what do we do when a law infringes on a fundamental right?

narrowness doctrine

avoid pronouncements when invalidating a law; making decisions very broad to allow other decisions in the future

avoiding the creating of new principles

don’t create a new principle if you can decide on an existing one; extends the narrowness doctrine

severability doctrine

the Court can strike out a part of a statute while leaving valid portions intact

unconstitutional as-applied

yes, the statute itself is ok, but as-applied to this defendant, it’s unconstitutional just in this case

deals with Congress, assigns the responsibility for making laws to the legislative branch, and Congress is divided into 2 parts

what does article 1 of the Constitution deal with?

deals with the executive branch and details the executive branch and offices of the President and VP

what does Article 2 of the Constitution deal with?

deals with the Judicial branch, specifies federal judges are appointed for life, and the1789 Judiciary Act created the 3-tiered court system in place today

what does Article 3 of the Constitution deal with?

blocked unconstitutional social and economic laws; presumption of constitutionality; and if a law is passed and infringed on a minority’s rights = deem it unconstitutional

what did the Constitutional Revolution of 1937 do?

rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and individual rights under the Constitution

what are the 5 fundamental principles of the “New” Constitution when ratified?

rule of law

society is regulated by the law, not a single person; Constitution imposes guidelines on the gov.; “no one is above the law”

separation of powers

separating the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of gov. in separate bodies

checks and balances

counterbalancing influences from the branches of gov. so to ensure that political power is not concentrated in the hands of one branch; ex. Fletcher v. Peck

Fletcher v. Peck (1810)

things can be reviewed in the federal gov.; First state case to be deemed unconstitutional under Judicial Review

federalism

dispersing power and responsibilities down to the state and local levels; “let the states do the dirty work and have additional power”

individual rights under the constitution

individual rights are in the Bill of Rights

Marbury v. Madison case significance

Dred Scott case significance

Gibbons v. Ogden case significance

McCulloch v. Maryland case significance

Dred Scott (1857) description

facts: Missouri Compromise

issue: the Court doesn’t know if Dred Scott could utilize SCOTUS because it’s free for citizens to sue… but is he considered a citizen or property because he was black

ruled: you can’t take away property without due process —> Scott was considered property

Missouri Compromise

anything north of Missouri will be “free” states

Gibbons v. Ogden description

expanded the powers of the commerce clause, setting the precedent of Congress’ broad ability to regulate interstate and commerce and some intrastate commerce

McCulloch v. Maryland description

the federal gov. had the right and power to set up a federal bank and states did not have the power to tax the federal gov.

Justice Marshall ruled in favor of the federal gov. and concluded, “the power to tax involved the power to destroy”

what is the purpose of FDR’s “Court Packing Plan”?

FDR’s “Court Packing Plan” description

was FDR’s “Court Packing Plan” successful?

got past Congress

who did FDR’s “Court Packing Plan” get past?

how was FDR’s “Court Packing Plan” not successful?