Key Vocabulary from Constitutional Law Topics

Text of the Constitution: The written document that establishes the framework of the government and fundamental laws of the state.
Intent of the Framers: Evidence related to what the authors of the Constitution intended when drafting the text, including:
- The Federalist Papers: A series of articles written to promote ratification of the Constitution.
- Debates During Proposal/Ratification: Discussions and debates held during the constitutional convention and subsequent ratifications.
Inferential Evidence: Conclusions drawn from analyzing the legal, social, economic, and political traditions prevalent during the drafting period.
Advancing Knowledge: Information from natural or social sciences that can inform constitutional interpretation.
Evolving Social Consensus: The changes in societal views and norms over time that may affect understanding of constitutional provisions.
Principles of Natural Law and Rights: Generally accepted doctrines regarding inherent human rights and ethical norms that underpin legal frameworks.

The use of these sources must balance utility (practicality and reliability) and legitimacy (appropriateness concerning the Constitution's purposes).
Considerations include modern Supreme Court questions regarding:
1. Execution of intellectually disabled defendants: Does it constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" under the 8th Amendment?
2. Presidential military actions without congressional authorization: Is this consistent with the Commander in Chief power under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 versus Congress's power to declare war as outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11?
3. Racial considerations in university admissions: Does considering applicant race violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?
4. Extended copyright protection: Does a law allowing copyright to extend an additional 20 years violate the limited-time clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 or infringe on First Amendment rights of free speech?

The Framers vary depending on the questions analyzed:
- Questions 2 & 4: Framers from the constitutional convention of 1789 and ratifying conventions.
- Questions 1 & 4: Framers from the First Congress meeting under the Constitution and state ratifying conventions.
- Question 3: Framers from the post-Civil War Congress of the late 1860s and state ratifying conventions.

Although the principle of judicial review was established in 1803 and is widely accepted, the rationale behind it remains contentious, particularly concerning its implications for democracy.
Marbury's Impact:
- Significantly increased the role of unelected, non-majoritarian judges in the constitutional system.
- Alternative histories suggest that the absence of judicial review would have resulted in substantial changes in modern American law and politics (e.g., rulings on education segregation and election proceedings).

Background: Explore the context motivating Marbury's lawsuit, why he felt wronged, and the legal source for his claim.
Political Context: Analyze the potential risks for a weak Supreme Court vis-a-vis the political landscape of the time.
Original Jurisdiction: Discuss why Marbury brought his case directly to the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Marshall's Involvement: Consider whether Marshall's personal stake made his participation inappropriate.

Right to Commission: Outline Marshall's rationale for granting Marbury's claim for his commission.
Judicial Remedy: Discuss the ruling that Marbury had a remedy available for the wrong done to him.
Conflict with Congressional Act: Explain the irreconcilable conflict identified by Marshall between the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Plausibility of Marshall’s Argument: Assess the reasoning that underpinned Marshall's conclusion about the conflict between Section 13 of the Judiciary Act and Article III.
Historical Context: Explore whether the authors of the Judiciary Act understood the implications of its provisions as they related to constitutional authority.
Judicial Review Justification: Critically appraise Marshall's arguments regarding the necessity of judicial review despite the law's implications.

Marshall asserts that judicial review is implied by:
1. A supreme written Constitution that must bind the legislative branch.
2. The natural role of judges to interpret and apply law.
Critique of Marshall's Perspective:
- Questions surrounding why the judiciary should hold the power to overrule the legislature, especially given the checks on legislative power.
- Concerns regarding the judiciary's lack of electoral check compared to Congress.
- Whether judicial review undermines the intended balance of government powers.

The judicial review justification one favors influences perceptions of judicial activism versus restraint and affects ongoing debates about doctrines such as justiciability, standing, and issues like presidential election disputes.
Conditional vs. Unconditional Justifications: Unconditional justification (i.e., judicial review is valid by virtue of the Framers' intent) contrasts with conditional (which hinges on the behavior and expectations of judges).

Contemplates the legislative branch's exclusive authority over impeachment and the lessons learned from historical precedence.

Engages with the political question doctrine and its function to restrain judiciary interference in other branches.

Argues for examining the merits of claims rather than dismissing them based on standing.

The Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims represent political questions not suitable for federal courts.
Recognition of the argument that districting decisions should reflect both representative and equal voting rights, but determining the threshold of excess partisanship presents legal complexities beyond judicial resolution.

It emphasizes the need for manageable legal standards which political representation issues do not fulfill, indicating a preference for political avenues to resolve such disputes rather than judicial intervention.

Just as constitutional interpretation must grapple with textual meanings and intentionalist views, so must court cases reflect an understanding of the balance of powers and the limitations of those seeking judicial remedy.