Key points plus jepoardy themes

1. Separation of Powers vs. Checks and Balances

Separation of Powers

• Concept: The Constitution divides the government into three separate branches: the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. This ensures that no single branch becomes too powerful by assigning specific duties to each.

• Checks and Balances: The branches are able to limit each other's powers to maintain a balance of power.

  • Legislative: Makes laws, controls the budget, and approves executive appointments.

  • Executive: Executes the laws and has veto power over legislation.

  • Judicial: Interprets the laws and can declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional.

2. Key Supreme Court Cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Key Concept: Judicial Review

  • Significance: Established judicial review, giving courts the power to invalidate laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution.

  • Outcome: The Court declared that the provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789 granting Marbury a writ of mandamus was unconstitutional, solidifying the judiciary’s role as a check on the other branches.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

• Key Concept: Executive Power & Separation of Powers

  • Significance: President Truman attempted to seize steel mills during the Korean War to prevent a strike. The Court ruled this was an unconstitutional exercise of presidential power.

  • Outcome: The Court used a three-part framework:

    1. Strong Presidential Power: If authorized by Congress.

    2. Limited Power: When the president acts without Congressional authorization but within constitutional bounds.

    3. No Power: When the president acts contrary to Congress’s authority (as in this case).

  • Justification: Truman claimed it was necessary to avoid a wartime emergency. The Court rejected this reasoning.

INS v. Chadha (1983)

• Key Concept: Legislative Veto

  • Significance: The Court ruled that the legislative veto was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers doctrine.

  • Outcome: Congress cannot unilaterally overturn executive actions or decisions through a legislative veto.

Walter Nixon v. United States (1993)

• Key Concept: Political Question Doctrine

  • Significance: This case addressed whether the judicial branch could interfere with the impeachment process in the Senate.

  • Outcome: The Court dismissed the case, stating impeachment is a political question that falls outside judicial review.

3. Doctrines and Concepts in Constitutional Law

Ripeness

• Definition: A case is ripe for judicial review if the issue has matured enough for the Court to address. Courts avoid hearing cases that are too premature or speculative.

Mootness

• Definition: A case is moot if the issue at hand has already been resolved or is no longer relevant. However, the Court may hear cases that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review," like abortion cases.

Political Questions Doctrine

• Definition: This doctrine holds that some issues, like impeachment or foreign policy, are to be decided by the political branches (Congress and the president) rather than the courts.

4. Delegation of Legislative Power & the Non-Delegation Doctrine

Non-Delegation Doctrine

• Definition: Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities without providing clear guidelines or an "intelligible principle" to govern the delegation.

• Case Example: Schechter Poultry Corp v. US (1935): The Court struck down a law that delegated too much power to the executive to regulate the poultry industry.

The "Intelligible Principle" Test

• Definition: This test evaluates whether Congress has provided sufficient guidelines when delegating power. The law must set clear boundaries for the delegated powers to prevent overreach.

• Case Example: In J.W. Hampton v. United States, the Court held that Congress can delegate power if it provides an intelligible principle.

5. Impeachment and Presidential Power

Impeachment: Walter Nixon v. United States (1993)

• Key Concept: Impeachment and Political Questions

  • Significance: The Court held that impeachment is a political question, and the judiciary cannot interfere with the Senate’s discretion in impeachment procedures.

6. Executive Privilege and State Secrets

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

• Key Concept: Freedom of the Press vs. National Security

  • Significance: This case is known as the "Pentagon Papers" case. The Court ruled that the government could not prevent the publication of classified documents unless it could show that national security was at serious risk.

  • Outcome: This case reinforced the First Amendment’s protection of the press and limited the executive's ability to restrict free speech for national security reasons.

State Secrets Privilege

• Definition: A doctrine that allows the government to withhold evidence from a court if its disclosure would harm national security.

• Case Example: United States v. Reynolds (1953): The Court ruled that the government could invoke the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing information that would harm national security.

Executive Privilege

• Definition: The president's right to withhold certain communications from the other branches of government, particularly if disclosing them would harm national security or the separation of powers.

• Case Example: United States v. Nixon (1974): The Court ruled that executive privilege could not be used to prevent the disclosure of evidence in a criminal investigation, even in the case of the president.

7. Key Doctrines in Constitutional Law

Strict Scrutiny

• Definition: The highest level of scrutiny used by courts when evaluating laws that infringe on fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications (e.g., race).

• Case Example: U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938): The Court established that stricter scrutiny would be applied in cases involving fundamental rights or suspect classifications.

Federalist No. 51

• Key Concept: Checks and Balances

  • Significance: Madison argues that the Constitution’s structure, with separate branches of government, ensures that no branch will dominate the others. Each branch must have enough power to check the others effectively.

Federalist No. 78

• Key Concept: Judiciary as the Least Dangerous Branch

  • Significance: Hamilton argued that the judiciary, due to its lack of control over the sword or the purse, is the least dangerous branch of government. The courts only have the power of judgment.

8. Presidential Power and Recognition of Foreign Governments

U.S. v. Curtis Wright Export Corp (1936)

• Key Concept: Executive Power in Foreign Affairs

  • Significance: The Court held that the president has exclusive authority in foreign affairs as the "sole organ" of the nation in this regard.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)

• Key Concept: Recognition of Foreign Governments

  • Significance: The Court ruled that the president has the exclusive authority to recognize foreign governments, and Congress cannot interfere with that power.

Final Jeopardy:

Strict Scrutiny and Judicial Review

• Concept: The Court may apply strict scrutiny in cases that affect fundamental rights or suspect classifications, ensuring that laws are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

**1. Separation of Powers vs. Checks and Balances

• Separation of Powers is designed to prevent any one branch of government from gaining too much power. It gives each branch specific responsibilities:

  • Legislative: Makes the laws (Article I).

  • Executive: Enforces the laws (Article II).

  • Judicial: Interprets the laws (Article III).

• Checks and Balances are designed to ensure that each branch has enough power to check the actions of the other branches:

  • Executive to Legislative: The president can veto bills passed by Congress.

  • Executive to Judicial: The president nominates judges, who must be confirmed by the Senate.

  • Legislative to Executive: Congress can override a presidential veto and can also impeach and remove the president.

  • Judicial to Executive and Legislative: Courts can declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional (Judicial Review).

2. The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

• More on Truman’s Justification: Truman, during the Korean War, faced a threat of a steel strike. He seized the steel mills to avoid a disruption in steel production, which was crucial for military efforts. Truman argued that the seizure was necessary for national defense and that Congress had delegated him powers to take such actions in times of emergency.

• Three-Part Framework (expanded):

  • First Category (presidential power with Congress's authorization): The president acts in line with congressional authorization.

  • Second Category (presidential power without specific Congressional authorization but within constitutional bounds): The president may act without direct authorization from Congress, but this is scrutinized closely.

  • Third Category (president acts against Congress’s wishes): The president’s power is weakest, and his actions are more likely to be struck down.

**3. Schechter Poultry Corp v. US (1935) and Delegation of Legislative Power

• Delegation: The Schechter Poultry case is significant because it emphasized that Congress cannot give away its lawmaking power without clear standards. The Non-Delegation Doctrine holds that Congress must set forth clear rules and limits for agencies to follow when implementing laws.

• "Intelligible Principle" Test: This test asks whether the statute provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the exercise of delegated power. In Schechter Poultry, the Court found the delegation to the president too vague, making it unconstitutional.

**4. Political Questions Doctrine

• More Detail: This doctrine is often invoked when courts are faced with cases that involve issues that the Court believes are more appropriate for the political branches (Congress and the Executive) to decide. Walter Nixon v. United States is a classic example of this doctrine in action, where the Court held that judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings is outside its jurisdiction.

• Factors to Consider: In determining whether a case is a political question, courts ask if there are:

  • Judicially manageable standards (can the Court make a ruling based on the law?),

  • A textually demonstrable commitment to another branch of government (does the Constitution leave this decision to another branch?),

  • Prudential reasons (is it wise for the Court to intervene?)

**5. State Secrets Privilege & Executive Privilege

• State Secrets Privilege (expanded):

  • Definition: The executive can invoke the state secrets privilege to withhold information from the courts, typically on the grounds of national security.

  • Application: Courts apply a balancing test to determine whether the need for secrecy outweighs the need for judicial review.

• Executive Privilege (expanded):

  • Definition: The privilege allows the president to withhold certain communications from the other branches of government, typically related to national security or sensitive executive decisions.

  • United States v. Nixon (1974): This case remains crucial in balancing executive privilege against the judiciary’s need for evidence in criminal investigations. The Court held that the president could not use executive privilege to prevent evidence in a criminal case from being subpoenaed, marking a significant limitation on executive power.

**6. Judicial Review (Marbury v. Madison)

• Importance: This case firmly established the power of judicial review, which has been an essential aspect of the American legal system ever since. The Court, led by Chief Justice Marshall, recognized that the judiciary has the authority to invalidate laws and executive actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution.

• Reasoning: Marshall's opinion emphasized that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

**7. The Impeachment Process (Walter Nixon v. United States)

• Impeachment as a Political Question: The Court ruled that impeachment is a political question, which means that the judiciary does not have the authority to review the Senate’s decision regarding impeachment procedures. This reflects the principle that impeachment is a mechanism that Congress, not the courts, should govern.

**8. Federalist No. 51

• Significance: This paper, written by James Madison, defends the system of checks and balances. It argues that the separation of powers is essential to prevent any one branch of government from gaining too much power and becoming tyrannical. Madison’s idea was that ambition must counteract ambition, meaning that each branch will check the others as a safeguard against tyranny.

**9. Strict Scrutiny (U.S. v. Carolene Products)

• Additional Insight: The case U.S. v. Carolene Products did not directly deal with strict scrutiny, but it is often cited as a foundation for the Court's approach to applying strict scrutiny to laws that affect fundamental rights or suspect classifications (e.g., race or national origin). The decision in Carolene Products set the stage for heightened scrutiny of laws that infringe on these rights.

• Strict Scrutiny: A law that discriminates based on race, religion, or national origin must meet the highest level of scrutiny—requiring a compelling government interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

**10. Executive Authority in Foreign Affairs

• U.S. v. Curtis Wright Export Corp (1936): The Court found that the president has broad powers in foreign relations, particularly when it comes to recognizing foreign governments or negotiating treaties. The Court declared that the president, as the "sole organ" in foreign policy, has inherent authority to act without needing Congressional approval in certain areas of foreign policy.