Study Notes on Constitutional Interpretation and the Supreme Court

How Should the Constitution be Interpreted?

Essential Question

• How have theories of how to interpret the Constitution evolved over U.S. history?

Lesson Overview: AP Constitutional Interpretation

Initial Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

• The Constitution was designed in a general way, lacking many specifics. Key reasons for this design include:

  • Flexibility: The Constitution was crafted to be flexible enough to respond to future events.

  • Consensus: The delegates could not agree on many details during its drafting.

  • Delegation: Certain details were intentionally left to Congress to determine later.

  • Time constraints: The Constitutional Convention had limited time to meet, which contributed to the broad language of the document.

• Due to the vague nature of the Constitution, two primary theories for its interpretation emerged almost immediately:

  • Strict Constructionism

  • Loose Constructionism

Strict Constructionism

• Definition: Advocates of Strict Constructionism assert that the federal government possesses only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution. These powers are often referred to as "enumerated powers" or "expressed powers".

• 10th Amendment: This theory is rooted in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which states:

• Implications:

  • Limits the power of the federal government.

  • Increases the power and autonomy of state governments.

  • Historically, Anti-Federalists were generally strict constructionists.

Loose Constructionism

• Definition: Advocates of Loose Constructionism contend that the federal government may exercise powers not explicitly listed in the Constitution, as long as these powers are not specifically prohibited by it. These are often referred to as Implied Powers.

• Necessary and Proper Clause: The foundation for this argument is the Necessary and Proper Clause:

• Implications:

  • Expands the powers of the federal government.

  • Limits the powers of state governments.

  • Historically, Federalists were generally loose constructionists.

Strict vs. Loose Constructionism in Action

• Debate over the National Bank:

  • Strict Constructionist Position (Jefferson): Argued that establishing a national bank was not an expressed power of the Constitution.

  • Loose Constructionist Position (Hamilton): Argued that creating a national bank was necessary and proper to execute the expressed power to regulate currency.

• Result: The establishment of the National Bank by Congress in 1791 set a precedent for the acceptance of implied powers.

Evolution of Constitutional Interpretation

• Over the course of American history, the understanding that the federal government possesses implied powers has been firmly established. Example areas of expansion include:

  • Acquiring new territories.

  • Establishing the Air Force.

• The debate over Constitutional interpretation has since evolved to encompass three major contemporary positions:

  • Original Intent

  • Textualism

  • Living Document

Original Intent

• Definition: The theory posits that key phrases in the Constitution should be interpreted based on the values and intentions of the authors.

• Amendment Principle: Powers granted by the Constitution cannot be changed without amending the document.

• Also Known As: Often referred to as "Originalism" or "original meaning".

• Strengths:

  • Grounded in historical scholarship.

  • Prevents radical reinterpretation of the Constitution's meaning.

• Weaknesses:

  • Establishing a singular clear intent is often impossible.

  • Provides less flexibility to address unforeseen modern issues.

• Historical Reference: Associated with James Madison, known as "The Father of the Constitution".

Textualism

• Definition: Advocates for interpreting phrases in the Constitution based solely on the ordinary meaning of the words found in the text itself, without reliance on external sources.

• Amendment Principle: Similar to Original Intent, powers granted cannot be altered without amendment.

• Strengths:

  • Eliminates the need to discern a singular original intent.

  • Provides an objective basis for the Constitution's application to unforeseen issues.

• Weaknesses:

  • May lead to difficulties interpreting confusingly worded parts of the Constitution.

  • Does not consider historical sources to clarify meanings.

Living Document

• Definition: Advocates argue that constitutional phrases should be interpreted according to societal values and views today.

• Amendment Principle: The powers under the Constitution can evolve over time without formal amendment.

• Also Known As: This perspective is often referred to as the "Living Constitution".

• Strengths:

  • Reflects social, moral, and technological progress.

  • Allows flexibility to respond to unforeseen issues.

• Weaknesses:

  • Risks disregarding the intentions of the Constitution's authors.

  • Can lead to uncertainty, as the meaning of the Constitution is seen as changeable.

Overview of the Court System

Essential Question: What are the three levels of the judicial branch, and what powers does the judicial branch hold?

Jurisdiction

• Definition: Jurisdiction is defined as "the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

• Application:

  • Physical area (district boundaries, etc.)

  • Types of law (e.g., trade law, criminal law)

• Types of Jurisdiction:

  1. Original Jurisdiction: Power to hear a case when it is first filed.

  2. Appellate Jurisdiction: Power to hear a case on appeal from a lower court.

The Judicial Branch

• Constitutional Basis: The Judicial Power is vested in one supreme Court and inferior courts as established by Congress (Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution).

• Types of Courts:

  • District Courts: The lowest level of the federal court system. There are 94 District Courts with jurisdiction over individual states and original jurisdiction over most federal laws.

  • Courts of Appeals: The middle tier of the federal court system with jurisdiction over several states and appellate jurisdiction over District Court cases (13 Courts of Appeals).

  • Supreme Court: The highest court in the U.S., with both original and appellate jurisdiction, and only one Supreme Court in the nation.

Supreme Court Powers

• Original Jurisdiction: Over cases involving ambassadors, ministers, and treaties, as well as disputes between states.

• Appellate Jurisdiction: Includes federal laws and disputes between citizens of different states.

• Judicial Review: The power to interpret the Constitution, established in Marbury vs. Madison (1803), allowing the Supreme Court to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional.

• Limitation: The court cannot hear cases that individuals present until appealed from lower courts. The 11th Amendment prohibits them from entertaining suits where a state is sued by a resident from another state.

The Supreme Court Composition

• Membership: The Supreme Court consists of nine justices appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

• Tenure: Justices serve for life on "good behavior" and can be impeached.

How a Case is Decided by the Supreme Court

• Most cases begin at the Federal District Court level, are appealed to the Court of Appeals, and can eventually reach the Supreme Court through a writ of certiorari (cert petitions).

• The Supreme Court typically accepts 70-100 cases a year from approximately 7000 petitions received.

• Processes:

  • Both parties submit written briefs.

  • Non-party groups can submit amicus curiae briefs in support.

  • Oral arguments present the case to justices.

  • Justices hold a private conference to discuss the case before a decision is reached.

Publishing Court Decisions

• Majority Opinion: The Supreme Court’s explanation for the decision.

• Dissenting Opinion: A Justice’s statement of disagreement with the majority ruling.

• Concurring Opinion: A Justice in the majority who disagrees with the reasoning of the Majority Opinion.

Emergency Orders

• The Supreme Court issues emergency orders for urgent matters, often to stay lower court decisions that could lead to irreversible harm if not addressed immediately. Emergency orders are typically resolved quickly, without detailed written opinions.

Judicial Review

What is Judicial Review?

• Definition: Judicial Review is the power to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional, established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). This power is not explicitly defined within the Constitution but has become crucial to the functioning of the Court.

Types of Judicial Review

1. Rational Basis Review: The easiest level of scrutiny where laws are upheld if rationally related to a government interest.

2. Intermediate Scrutiny: A harder standard requiring that laws serve an important government interest and that the means are substantially related to that interest (applies to non-fundamental rights).

3. Strict Scrutiny: The toughest standard, applied to laws restricting fundamental rights or affecting a protected class, requiring a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored means.

Power and Limits of Judicial Review

• Increased Power: Judicial Review has strengthened the Supreme Court’s role in constitutional interpretation, making it the authoritative voice on Constitutional rights.

• Limits: The Supreme Court cannot invalidate laws simply because they are unpopular; only if they violate constitutional principles or state constitutions under the U.S. Constitution.

Supreme Court Precedent

• Supreme Court rulings are binding on lower courts (legal precedent) and the principle of "Stare Decisis" ensures that the Court adheres to its previous decisions. Changes to precedent occur either when the Court overturns a previous decision or when Congress amends the Constitution.

Judicial Philosophies & Constitutional Interpretation

Overview of Judicial Philosophies

• Judicial Activism: Judges actively interpret the Constitution to rectify injustices and limit governmental overreach.

  • Pros: Aims for greater justice and accountability in governance.

  • Cons: Centralizes power within the Supreme Court, limiting other branches.

• Judicial Restraint: Judges defer to Congress and the President's interpretations of the Constitution, avoiding re-interpretation for just outcomes.

  • Pros: Reduces Supreme Court power aligning with public will.

  • Cons: Creates confusion regarding constitutional interpretation among branches.

Conservative vs. Liberal Judges

• Federal judges, regardless of political affiliation at the time of their appointment, may align with either conservative or liberal philosophies.

• Major constitutional interpretations can generally break down into:

  1. Original Intent: Understanding the Constitution through its authors' perspectives.

  2. Textualism: Interpreting the Constitution based on its text.

  3. Living Document: Viewing the Constitution through contemporary societal values.

• Conservative judges typically gravitate towards original intent or textualism,

• Liberal judges often prefer living document or textualism as frameworks.

Supreme Court Majority and Decisions

• The Supreme Court is generally recognized as having a conservative majority, although decisions can encompass diverse perspectives among justices.

• Voting patterns do not always follow strict partisan lines, as justices may form broad coalitions across ideological lines in complex cases.