Untitled Flashcards Set

• Card 1: Article VI vs. 10th Amendment

  • Front: What's the core conflict between Article VI and the 10th Amendment?

  • Back:

    • Article VI (Supremacy Clause): Federal law is supreme over state law.

    • 10th Amendment: Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

    • Conflict: Constant tension over the balance of power between federal and state governments.

• Card 2: Federalist #10 - Factions

  • Front: What are "factions" according to Federalist #10?

  • Back:

    • madsion - Groups of citizens united by a common interest, potentially adverse to the rights of other citizens or the common good.

    • Examples: Political parties, interest groups.

• Card 4: Separation of Powers

  • Front: Define "separation of powers."

  • Back:

    • Division of governmental power among three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.

    • Purpose: Prevent tyranny by distributing authority.

• Card 5: Checks and Balances

  • Front: Define "checks and balances."

  • Back:

    • System where each branch of government can limit the powers of the other branches.

    • Purpose: Prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.

• Card 6: Checks Example

  • Front: Give an example of a check and balance.

  • Back:

    • President's veto: Executive check on legislative.

    • Congress's impeachment: Legislative check on executive and judicial.

    • Judicial review: Judicial check on legislative and executive

• Card 12: Senate Advice and Consent

  • Front: What is the senates advice and consent power?

  • Back:

    • Senate's power to approve presidential treaties (two-thirds vote) and appointments (majority vote).

    • Ensures executive accountability in foreign policy and personnel decisions.

• Card 13: Judicial Review

  • Front: What is judicial review?

  • Back:

    • Power of courts to determine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.

    • Established in Marbury v. Madison.

• Card 15: Original Jurisdiction (SC)

  • Front: What cases have Supreme Court original jurisdiction?

  • Back:

    • Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.

    • Cases in which a state is a party.

    • Article 3 section 2.

• Card 16: Appellate Jurisdiction (SC)

  • Front: What is Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction?

  • Back:

    • Power to review decisions of lower federal courts and state courts involving federal law.

    • "With such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

• Card 17: "Exceptions and Regulations"

  • Front: What does "with such exceptions and under such regulations" mean?

  • Back:

    • Congress has the power to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.

    • Controversial issue in constitutional law.

• Card 18: Original vs. Appellate

  • Front: What is the difference between original and appellate Jurisdiction?

  • Back:

    • Original: Court hears a case for the first time.

    • Appellate: Court reviews a case that has already been decided by a lower court.

Judicial Review (Enhanced Flashcard Style)

• Card 19: Marbury v. Madison

  • Front: What did Marbury v. Madison establish?

  • Back:

    • Established the principle of judicial review.

    • Facts: Marbury sued Madison for failing to deliver his judicial commission.

    • Holding: Supreme Court could not issue a writ of mandamus because the law authorizing it was unconstitutional.

• Card 20: Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee

  • Front: What did Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee establish?

  • Back:

    • Established the Supreme Court's authority to review state court decisions involving federal law.

    • Established Federal court Supremacy.

• Card 21: "Say What the Law Is"

  • Front: Where does "say what the law is" come from, and what does it mean?

  • Back:

    • Quoted from Marbury v. Madison.

    • Means: It is the province of the judiciary to interpret and apply the law, including determining its constitutionality.

• Card 22: Originalism

  • Front: What is originalism?

  • Back:

    • A legal philosophy that interprets the Constitution based on the original understanding of the Framers.

    • Strengths: Provides stability and limits judicial discretion.

    • Weaknesses: Can be inflexible and difficult to apply to modern issues.

    • Example: A strict originalist might oppose same-sex marriage rights if they believe the Framers did not intend to include them.

• Card 23: Living Constitution

  • Front: What is the "living Constitution" theory?

  • Back:

    • A legal philosophy that interprets the Constitution as a dynamic document that evolves with societal changes.

    • Strengths: Allows the Constitution to adapt to modern needs.

    • Weaknesses: Can lead to subjective interpretations and judicial activism.

    • Example: A "living Constitution" advocate might support same-sex marriage rights as an extension of equal protection principles.

• Card 24: Compact Theory

  • Front: What is the compact theory?

  • Back:

    • The idea that the Constitution is a compact among sovereign states, giving them the right to interpret and challenge federal laws.

    • Historically used to justify states' rights and nullification.

    • Example: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

• Card 26: Ripeness

  • Front: What is "ripeness"?

  • Back:

    • A case must present an actual controversy that is sufficiently mature for judicial resolution.

    • Prevents courts from issuing advisory opinions on hypothetical issues.

    • Example: A challenge to a law that has not yet been enforced is typically not ripe.

• Card 27: Mootness

  • Front: What is "mootness"?

  • Back:

    • A case is moot if the controversy has ended or the issue has been resolved, making judicial intervention unnecessary.

    • "Capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception: allows courts to hear cases that are likely to recur, even if the immediate issue is resolved.

    • Example: Roe v. Wade, where the pregnancy had ended by the time the case reached the Supreme Court.

• Card 28: Standing

  • Front: What is "standing"?

  • Back:

    • A party must have a personal stake in the outcome of a case, demonstrating a direct injury caused by the challenged action.

    • Elements: Injury in fact, causation, and redressability.

    • Example: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, where plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show a direct injury.

• Card 29: Political Question

  • Front: What is a "political question"?

  • Back:

    • Issues that courts deem inappropriate for judicial resolution, typically because they are better left to the political branches.

    • Baker v. Carr criteria: Textual commitment to another branch, lack of judicially manageable standards, etc.

    • Example: Challenges to the conduct of foreign policy, such as treaty termination.

• .

• Card 31: Necessary and Proper Clause

  • Front: What is the Necessary and Proper Clause?

  • Back:

    • Article I, Section 8, Clause 18; grants Congress the power to make laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out its enumerated powers.

    • McCulloch v. Maryland: Established the doctrine of implied powers.

    • Example: Congress's power to create a national bank.

• Card 33: Unitary Executive

  • Front: What is the unitary executive theory?

  • Back:

    • The idea that the President has absolute control over the executive branch and its agencies.

    • Controversial theory with implications for presidential power and accountability.

    • Example: A president using this theory may disregard congressional oversight of executive agencies.

• Card 34: Treaty Power

  • Front: What is the treaty power?

  • Back:

    • President negotiates treaties, Senate approves by a two-thirds vote (Article II, Section 2).

    • Missouri v. Holland: Treaties can authorize Congress to enact laws that would otherwise be beyond its power.

    • Example: The Paris Agreement on climate change.

• Card 35: Youngstown Case

  • Front: What did the Youngstown case establish?

  • Back:

    • Limited the President's power to seize private property during a labor dispute.

    • Justice Jackson's concurrence: Three categories of presidential power.

    • Example: President Truman's seizure of steel mills during the Korean War.

• Card 36: Executive Privilege

  • Front: What is executive privilege?

  • Back:

    • The President's right to withhold confidential communications from the other branches of government.

    • United States v. Nixon: Limited executive privilege in criminal investigations.

    • Example: A president refusing to disclose communications related to national security.

I will continue to refine the post modern section in the next response.

• Card 37: Locke's Property

  • Front: What are Locke's limits on property acquisition?

  • Back:

    • State of nature: Individuals own themselves and their labor.

    • Acquisition: Mixing labor with natural resources creates ownership.

    • Limits: No spoilage (waste), "enough and as good" left for others.

    • Significance: Influenced ideas of private property and limited government.

• Card 38: Paine's Agrarian Justice

  • Front: What is Paine's view on natural property?

  • Back:

    • Distinction: Natural property (land) vs. acquired property (goods).

    • Equality: All individuals have equal rights to natural property.

    • Proposal: National fund to compensate those without land, funded by landowners.

    • Generational wealth is a problem.

• Card 39: Generational Sovereignty

  • Front: What is generational sovereignty?

  • Back:

    • Jeffersonian idea: Each generation has the right to govern itself.

    • Usufructuary rights: Each generation has the right to use the earth, but not to permanently alienate it.

    • Implications: Limits on perpetual laws and debts.

    • Responsiblity to preserve shit.

• Card 40: Illinois Central RR

  • Front: What did the Illinois Central RR case establish?

  • Back:

    • Public trust doctrine: States hold certain resources (e.g., navigable waters) in trust for the public.

    • Limits on alienation: States cannot permanently surrender control of these resources.

    • Relates to Fletcher v. Peck, but is different.

    • Relates to Newton v. Mahoning County

• Card 41: Davidson - Titles of Nobility

  • Front: What are Davidson's concerns about modern "nobility"?

  • Back:

    • Constitutional prohibition: Article I, Sections 9 and 10.

    • Modern equivalents: Corporate monopolies, perpetual trusts, excessive wealth concentration.

    • Concerns: Entrenched privilege, control over resources, inequality.

    • Territorial dominion, favoritism in legal processes.

• Card 42: Davidson - Scalia's Standing

  • Front: What is Davidson's argument against Scalia's standing view?

  • Back:

    • Scalia's view: Strict standing requirements (injury, causation, redressability).

    • Davidson's counter: Future generations deserve representation; equity principles allow for it.

    • Arguments: unforeseen circumstances, class actions, and irreparable harm.

    • Unrepresented majority.

• Card 43: Juliana v. U.S.

  • Front: What right was recognized in Juliana v. U.S.?

  • Back:

    • Fundamental right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life.

    • Based on substantive due process and fundamental rights analysis.

    • Relates to Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges.

• Card 44: Institutes of Justinian

  • Front: How do the Institutes of Justinian relate to generational rights?

  • Back:

    • Common resources: Air, water, sea are common to all.

    • Limits on ownership: Reinforces public trust principles.

    • Influences discussions on generational rights.

• Card 45: Davidson - Private Land Ownership vs. Government Power

  • Front: What is Davidsons view on private land ownership?

  • Back:

    • Land ownership as a form of sovereignty.

    • Spencer Butte Thought Experiment.

    • Marsh v. Alabama, Shelley v. Kraemer, Logan Valley Plaza.

    • Proposes to fragment land rights.

Justiciability (Enhanced Flashcard Style)

• Card 47: Advisory Opinions

  • Front: What are advisory opinions?

  • Back:

    • Courts do not issue advisory opinions on hypothetical legal questions.

    • Requirement of an actual case or controversy.

• Card 49: Los Angeles v. Lyons

  • Front: What was the issue in Los Angeles v. Lyons?

  • Back:

    • Standing: Lyons had standing for damages but not for an injunction against police chokeholds.

    • Shows the difference between past damages and future injury.

• Card 50: Allen v. Wright

  • Front: What were the key issues in Allen v. Wright?

  • Back:

    • Standing: Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge IRS policies because they could not show direct causation or redressability.

    • Causality and redressability are core constitutional requirements.

• Card 51: United States v. S.C.R.A.P.

  • Front: What was the significance of United States v. S.C.R.A.P.?

  • Back:

    • Standing: Recognized standing for aesthetic and environmental harms.

    • Expanded the idea of what constitutes a valid injury.

• Card 52: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

  • Front: What were the key issues in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife?

  • Back:

    • Standing: Plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show direct injury, causation, or redressability.

    • Reinforced strict standing requirements.

• Card 53: Hollingsworth v. Perry

  • Front: What was the issue in Hollingsworth v. Perry?

  • Back:

    • Standing: Ballot initiative sponsors lacked standing to defend a state law in federal court. - gay rights

    • No "personal stake or particularized interest."

• Card 54: Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow

  • Front: What was the issue in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow?

  • Back:

    • Standing: Father lacked "prudential" standing to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance.

    • Court avoids intervening in domestic relations.

• Card 55: Flast v. Cohen

  • Front: What is taxpayer standing?

  • Back:

    • Flast v. Cohen: Federal taxpayer has standing to challenge taxing and spending power if it violates specific constitutional limits.

    • Limits have narrowed since this case.

• Card 56: Baker v. Carr

  • Front: What were the key issues in Baker v. Carr?

  • Back:

    • Political question: Malapportionment is justiciable.

    • "One person, one vote" principle.

• Card 57: Rucho v. Common Cause

  • Front: What was the issue in Rucho v. Common Cause?

  • Back:

    • Political question: Partisan gerrymandering is a nonjusticiable political question.

    • Courts avoid intervening in political redistricting.

• Card 58: Walter Nixon v. United States

  • Front: What was the issue in Walter Nixon v. United States?

  • Back:

    • Political question: Senate impeachment trial procedures are nonjusticiable.

    • Senate has sole power to try impeachments.

• Card 59: Goldwater v. Carter

  • Front: What was the issue in Goldwater v. Carter?

  • Back:

    • Political question: Treaty termination is a political question.

    • Disputes between the executive and legislative branches.

• Card 61: Powell v. McCormack

  • Front: What was the significance of Powell v. McCormack?

  • Back:

    • Congress cannot add to the qualifications for membership specified in Article I.

    • House "exclusion" of Powell was unconstitutional.

    • Legislative privilege did not protect the sergeant at arms.

• Card 62: U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton

  • Front: What was the issue in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton?

  • Back:

    • States cannot impose term limits on members of Congress.

    • The qualifications in the constitution are fixed and exclusive.

    • Arkansas state constitutional amendment was unconstitutional.

• Card 64: Speech or Debate Clause

  • Front: What is the Speech or Debate Clause?

  • Back:

    • Article I, Section 6; protects members of Congress from legal liability for their legislative acts.

    • Purpose: To ensure free and independent legislative debate.

• Card 66: McCulloch v. Maryland

  • Front: What was the significance of McCulloch v. Maryland?

  • Back:

    • Established the doctrine of implied powers and the supremacy of federal law.

    • "Necessary and proper" clause.

    • Maryland could not tax the national bank.

• Card 67: Art II, Sec. 2, Para. 2

  • Front: What is the Senate's "advice and consent" power?

  • Back:

    • Senate's power to approve treaties and presidential appointments.

    • Check on the president's foreign policy and executive appointments.

• Card 68: Goldwater v. Carter (Treaty Termination)

  • Front: What was the issue in Goldwater v. Carter (Treaty Termination)?

  • Back:

    • Whether the president could unilaterally terminate a treaty.

    • Court dismissed the case as a political question.

    • Disputes over presidential foreign policy powers and treaty termination were political questions best left to the executive and legislative branches.

• Card 70: Quinn v. United States

  • Front: What was the issue in Quinn v. United States?

  • Back:

    • Congressional investigatory power.

    • Individuals have the right to use their fifth amendment right against self incrimination.

• Card 71: Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigative Committee

  • Front: What was the issue in Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigative Committee?

  • Back:

    • Congressional investigatory power.

    • Freedom of association.

    • In some cases, organizations do not have to give up their member lists.

• Card 72: J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States

  • Front: What is the "intelligible principle" test?

  • Back:

    • Congress must provide an "intelligible principle" to guide executive agencies when delegating legislative power.

    • This case established the standard.

• Card 73: Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States

  • Front: What was the significance of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States?

  • Back:

    • Struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act for excessive delegation of legislative power.

    • Only time the supreme court fully invalidated a law on non-delegation grounds.

• Card 74: Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha

  • Front: What was the issue in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha?

  • Back:

    • congressional Legislative veto of exectitive actions is unconstitutional.

    • Violates the Presentment Clause and bicameralism.

• Card 75: Federalist 70

  • Front: What are the key arguments in Federalist 70?

  • Back:

    • Advocates for a strong, unitary executive.

    • Importance of energy and dispatch in the executive.

• Card 76: Sole Organ Theory

  • Front: What is the "sole organ" theory?

  • Back:

    • President is the sole organ of the nation in foreign relations.

    • United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

• Card 77: United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

  • Front: What was the significance of United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.?

  • Back:

    • President has broad power to conduct foreign affairs.

    • Congressional resolution authorized Pres. to prohibit sales of arms to Bolivia.

• Card 78: Zivotofsky v. Kerry

  • Front: What was the issue in Zivotofsky v. Kerry?

  • Back:

    • President's exclusive power to recognize foreign nations.

    • Congress cannot mandate State Department policy on passport designations.

• Card 79: Missouri v. Holland

  • Front: What was the significance of Missouri v. Holland?

  • Back:

    • Treaties can authorize Congress to enact laws that would otherwise be beyond its power.

    • Migratory bird treaty act with canada.

• Card 80: United States v. Belmont/Pink

  • Front: What was the significance of United States v. Belmont/Pink?

  • Back:

    • Executive agreements have the force of law.

    • Recognition of a foreign government validates its acts.

    • Both cases involve the Livitnov agreement.

• Card 81: Prize Cases

  • Front: What was the issue in the Prize Cases?

  • Back:

    • President's power to order a blockade during a domestic insurrection. - civil war

    • President has the power to act without congressional authorization in certain emergency circumstances.

• Card 82: Korematsu v. United States

  • Front: What was the significance of Korematsu v. United States?

  • Back:

    • Upheld the constitutionality of Japanese-American internment during World War II.

    • "Emergency and peril" justification.

    • Compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril".

• Card 83: Boumediene v. Bush

  • Front: What was the issue in Boumediene v. Bush?

  • Back:

    • Guantanamo Bay detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus.

    • Military Commissions Act was struck down.

• Card 84: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Jackson's Concurrence)

  • Front: What are Justice Jackson's three categories of presidential power?

  • Back:

    • Maximum authority: President acts with express congressional authorization.

    • Twilight zone: President acts in the absence of congressional authorization.

    • Minimum authority: President acts against express congressional will.

• Card 85: Ex parte Garland

  • Front: What was the significance of Ex parte Garland?

  • Back:

    • President's pardon power

• Card 90: United States v. Nixon

  • Front: What was the significance of United States v. Nixon?

  • Back:

    • Limited executive privilege.

    • President must comply with subpoenas in criminal investigations.

    • A claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial cannot override the needs of the judicial process.  

• Card 91: Clinton v. Jones

  • Front: What was the issue in Clinton v. Jones?

  • Back:

    • President can be sued for private conduct that occurred before taking office.

    • No temporary immunity from civil suits.

• Card 92: Nixon v. Fitzgerald

  • Front: What was the significance of Nixon v. Fitzgerald?

  • Back:

    • President is entitled to absolute immunity from civil damages for official acts.

    • U.S. President could not be criminally prosecuted for some conduct committed as President which was regarded as official acts.