Eakin v. Raub

Eakin v. Raub:     This case was centered on the question of whether or not Chief Justice John Marshall’s interpretation in Marbury v. Madison was correct, and whether or not State Supreme Courts had the power of Judicial Review. The State Supreme Court sided with the Plaintiff. They held that State Supreme Courts and the SCOTUS had the power to review legislative acts and declare them void if they violate the State Constitution. John Gibson of the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court wrote one of finest rebuttals to Marshall’s decision in Marbury v. Madison. In his rebuttal, Judge Gibson argues that rather than the Judiciary being the decider when the Constitution and the legislature come into collision, the people should be the deciding factor. Judge Gibson reasons that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, should be preserved by the people of the United States because he believes that any powers not explicitly granted to the judicial branch in the Constitution are to be left to the people. Ex Parte McCardle:       William McCardle was a journalist who wrote editorials opposing the Reconstruction laws. Because of these editorials, he was arrested and held for a trial before a military tribunal. Because he was a civilian, not militia, McCardle claimed that he was being illegally held. He petitioned for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under an 1867 act that said Federal Courts had the power to grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases where any person was deprived of his liberty. When this failed, McCardle appealed to the Supreme Court. Writ of Habeas Corpus means you can’t be held in jail without a hearing in front of a judge. No one in our country may be held in captivity except under the authority of the Rule of Law. Congress repealing the provision of the 1867 Habeas Corpus Act that gave the Supreme Court authority to hear appeals emanating from it. The Court determined that without jurisdiction, they cannot proceed. McCardle suggests that Congress has the authority to remove the Court’s appellate jurisdiction as it deems necessary. Baker v. Carr      Nashville Mayor Charles Baker brought suit against the Secretary of State for Tennessee, Joe C. Carr citing that urban voters were disproportionately under-represented comparatively to rural voters. Baker sued the Tennessee Secretary of States to reapportion representatives so that the representation between urban and rural voters would be proportional to the populations. The Court’s previous decision in Colegrove v. Green served as precedent in Carr’s argument against reapportioning district representatives. The decision in Colegrove up held a law that allows states that had reapportioned representatives since 1900 were not under a federal constitutional mandate to do so again until they felt it was necessary. Until this time, state reapportionment issues fell under Political Questions, not judiciary ones. The two main questions in this case are: Is the apportionment of state representatives a justiciable federal issue under Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution? Are the appellants being denied   equal protection of the law given to them in the 14 th Amendment if state representation is disproportional between urban and rural voters? The Court ruled in favor of Baker. This case opened the window for judicial resolution of reapportionment cases. It also established elements for determining whether a dispute presented a political question. They agreed that the reapportionment statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This case established the principle of one person, one vote for legislative representation. State Police Powers- State Police Power comes from the 10th Amendment which gives states the rights and powers “not delegated to the United States.” Status are granted the power to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety, and health of the public. Cooperative federalism- when states and federal governments come together for a joint purpose. 1. Federal Question Jurisdiction- Federal Courts have the power to decide questions of federal law. It is the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution or federal law. 2. Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction- A federal court can hear a civil case when the persons are “diverse,” meaning they are citizens of different states. State courts may be biased towards the person from their states. They apply the law of the state where the incident occurred. Discretionary Review- The authority of courts to decide which appeals they will consider among the cases submitted to them. Quasi-Legislative Function- Action that involves behavior of a legislative function or nature. This term came up in the case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States where the Court distinguished between officials who exercise purely legislative functions and those who carry out quasi-legislative functions. Those who exercise quasi legislative functions may be removed only with procedures consistent with conditions enacted by Congress. The FTC was created by Congress to perform Quasi-Legislative and Quasi-Judicial Functions. Therefore, the Myers precedent did not apply. Quasi-Judicial Functions- When an agency acts in a judicial nature. Arose in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States when the court distinguished between officials who exercise purely legislative functions and those who carry out quasi-judicial functions. Those who exercise quasi-judicial functions may be removed only with procedures enacted by Congress. The FTC was created by Congress to perform Quasilegislative and Quasi-Judicial Functions, so the Myers precedent did not apply. Dual Federalism- A political arrangement in which power is divided between federal and state governments in clearly defined terms. State governments can exercise power without interference from the federal government. The most common appellate path to the Supreme Court is a request for a writ of certiorari. Here, the litigants desiring Supreme Court review ask the court to “become informed” about their case by asking that the lower court send up the record. The SC grants “cert” to less than 1% of these petitions. A grant of cert means that the justices have decided to give the case full review; a denial means the decision of the lower court remains in force. Rule of Four- Any 4 justices may vote to grant a Writ of Certiorari and bring a case to the Supreme Court. Concrete Judicial Review- when judicial review is exercised only in a genuine legal dispute. Abstract Judicial Review- When the court gives its advice on the constitutionality of a specific law or policy at the request of another government agency. Amicus Curie Briefs- “Friend of the court” brief. These briefs are usually filed by interest groups and other third parties after the Court makes its decision to hear a case, but can also be filed at the Certiorari stage. Research shows these briefs significantly a case’s chances of being heard. Originalism (Meaning or Intent):   Intent- They attempt to interpret the Constitution in line with what it meant at the time it was drafted. They ask what the framers wanted to do. Focuses on the intent behind phrases. Meaning- Considers what a clause meant to those who enacted it. Emphasizes the meaning a reasonable speaker of English would have attached to the words or phrases at the time the particular provision was adopted. Stare Decisis- “Let the decision stand.” As a general rule, jurists should decide cases on the basis of previously established rulings, or precedent. Prior rulings should be honored. The benefit of this approach is that the law becomes predictable and stable. Pragmatism (Evolution) - The meaning of the Constitution has evolved over time. We understand that even if we try to be true to the Constitution, the facts change over time and we must adapt the language. Preference Based Interpretation- sees the justices as rational decision makers who hold certain values they would like to see reflected in the outcomes of Court cases. Consists of 2 approaches: Judicial attitudes and judicial roles. Judicial attitudes emphasize the importance of the justices’ political ideologies. Judicial Activism- An activist justice believes that the proper role of the Court is to assert independent positions in deciding cases, to review the actions of the other branches vigorously, to be willing to strike down unconstitutional acts, and impose far-reaching remedies for legal wrongs when necessary. Judicial Passivism- These justices believe that the Court should not become involved in the operations of the other branches unless absolutely necessary, that the benefit of the doubt should be given to actions taken by elected officials, and that the Court should impose remedies that are narrowly tailored to correct specific legal wrongs. Subsidiarity- In a political system, the decisions that should be made regarding the public good should be made as close to the people as possible. Thomas Jefferson thought that the government which governs least is the best government. Monetarism- Intervention based on monetary control (chiefly of the interest rate). Alexander Hamilton and the various federal banks that we have had. We now have a federal reserve system. When the Federal Reserve meets, they can raise or lower the rate of interest we can charge on debts. Milton Freidman says we can use the rates we charge on interest to stimulate the economy. Fiscalism- Intervention based on fiscal matters – taxing and spending. We must understand this difference between this and intervention based on monetary control. Mercantilism- This means that the government should use its powers to distribute resources to encourage certain kinds of enterprises. Hamilton was a mercantilist. He was trying to encourage the development of the market economy in the North part of the United States to engage in trade with Europe. Standing to Sue- A limitation on the power of the Supreme Court. This is a requirement that the party bringing a lawsuit have standing to sue: if the party bringing the litigation is not the appropriate party, the courts will not resolve the dispute. The party must have suffered a concrete injury, the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and the party must show that a favorable court decision is likely to provide redress. Line Item Veto- Allowed the president to cancel particular taxing and spending provisions after they were signed into law. The Line Item Veto Act allowed the president to cancel certain tax and spending benefits after they had been signed into law. This practice was ended by the decision in Clinton v. City of New York. Justiciability- The federal courts judicial power is restricted to “cases” and “controversies.” These words mean that litigation must be justiciable- appropriate or suitable for a federal tribunal to hear or solve. Writ of Mandamus- Court order issued by a state or federal court to a public official that says “here is what you must do because the law requires you to do it.” Requires them to carry out their duties. This what William Marbury petitioned the court for in the case Marbury v. Madison. Ripeness- When a case is ripe for decision, this means that the issues have been developed, interest groups are involved, and all the conceivable arguments that can be made have been made and now the case is ripe for decision by the Supreme Court. The ripeness requirement mandates that a party exhaust all available administrative and lower court remedies before seeking review by the Supreme Court. Supremacy Clause- This Constitution and treaties made under its authority shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supremacy Clause was cited in Marbury v. Madison when it found the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional because it conflicted with the Constitution. Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-The Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, and cases in which a state is a party. These cases are usually when one state is suing another, usually over a disputed boundary. Political Question- A political question is one that should be decided through the political process rather than by a court of law. An example is yesterday when Trump said he would “wipe ISIS from the face of the Earth.” Is there a judicial standard for determining what he might do to accomplish this? Political questions are a type of nonjusticiable suit. This is when the Court recognizes that there is a class of questions the Court will not address because they are better solved by other branches of government even though they may be constitutional in nature. Colegrove v. Green held that reapportionment constituted a political question, which was held to be true until Baker v. Carr. Legislative Trustee- A role of representatives in which constituents elect their representatives as trustees. These trustees have significant autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the common good, even if it means going against the interests of their constituents. Legislative Instructed Delegate- This is a representative who acts according to the wishes of his constituents. Silent Gerrymandering- Gerrymandering is manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favor one political party. Silent gerrymandering is a gerrymander that has been developed through failure of a legislature to revise election district boundaries in accord with population shifts usually with benefit to one political party over its opponents. Term Limits- Opponents of term limits point to the qualifications clauses in Article I, and these requirements cannot be altered by Congress or the States. The decision in US Term Limits v. Thornton settled the issue of qualifications for congressional office. Age, residency, and citizenship requirements are a complete statement of congressional eligibility standards. Such alterations to requirements for membership in the legislature could be imposed only by constitutional amendment. Legislative Investigative Purpose- Congress has the ability to conduct investigations. To legislative effectively Congress must be able to gather information to determine whether new laws are necessary. Partisan Gerrymandering- the drawing of electoral district lines in a manner that discriminates against a political party. Necessary and Proper Clause- This involves the question of whether Congress has more powers than those specifically granted in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 provides that Congress shall have the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution.” Congress could exercise powers beyond those listed in the Constitution, those that were “necessary and proper” for implementing legislative activity. This concept was dealt with in the case McCulloch v. Maryland. Trigger or Coverage Formula- Section 4 created a “triggering” or “coverage” formula to determine those states and political subdivisions that will be subject to additional scrutiny in regards to voting rights. The formula was based on the previous use of racially discriminatory practices and low voter registration or turnout. Pre-Clearance- A procedure that said no jurisdiction that qualifies under the coverage formula can implement any changes in voting procedures until they are approved by the US Justice Department. Power of Removal- If the president abuses the office, impeachment is the method of removal. This is a 2 stage process. First, the House of Representatives investigates the charges. If there is sufficient evidence of misconduct, the second stage is a trial that takes place in the Senate. The Chief Justice presides over this trial. Marbury v. Madison       William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court asking for a Writ of Mandamus to grant his judicial appointment based on the Judiciary Act. The Court ruled that he had a right to the commission. But, the Supreme Court does not have Original Jurisdiction to grant a Writ of Mandamus. They can only be given through Appellate Jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act expanded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which conflicted with the Constitution. The Court cited the Supremacy Clause and struck down the Judiciary Act as unconstitutional. Therefore the Court had no jurisdiction and ruled against Marbury. This case created the power of Judicial Review, which means that the court has the authority to review and strike down government actions that were incompatible with the Constitution. Marbury sent a clear signal that the court would be a major player in the American government. Powell v. McCormack  Representative Clayton Powell was entangled in various legal controversies.    Congress launched an inquiry into his activities, and when he was reelected the House refused to seat him. Powell filed a lawsuit claiming that the body’s refusal to seat him violated the qualifications clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that because Powell was duly elected and because he met the constitutional standards for membership, the House could not refuse to seat him. U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton     Amendment 73 originated in Arkansas which prohibited anyone seeking reelection who had previously served 2 terms in the US Senate. Ray Thornton filed suit and claimed that based on Powell v. McCormack, the federal constitution establishes the sole qualifications for federal office, and the states may not alter them. The Court sided with Thornton. This decision coupled with Powell ruling authoritatively settled the issue of qualifications for congressional office. The Constitution’s age, residency, and citizenship requirements are a complete statement of eligibility standards. Neither Congress nor the states may add to or delete those requirements. Such alterations could be imposed only by Constitutional Amendment. Gravel v. United States     Does the Speech and Debate clause protect congressional staff members? Senator Mike Gravel leaked a classified government document known as the Pentagon Papers, but the charges were limited mostly to his aide. The Supreme Court ruled that the Speech or Debate Clause gave similar protection to the senator and the aide. They also declared, however, that the protection was not absolute. Both the senator and the aide could be questioned for activities that had no direct connection to the legislative process. McCulloch v. Maryland      This case involved the meaning and implications of the “Necessary and Proper Clause” with respect to the creation of a national bank. The Court unanimously ruled in favor of the power to create a National Bank. Marshall adopted the interpretation of the necessary and proper clause to mean “convenient or useful,” rather than “necessary.” The long term effect of the necessary and proper clause has been significant: Congress now exercises many powers not named in the Constitution but implied by it. This interpretation agreed with the Federalist interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause. McGrain v. Daugherty     A scandal known as the Teapot Dome involved the bribery of public officials to obtain government-held oil reserves. The attorney general’s brother refused to appear before the committee. The Supreme Court upheld Daugherty’s contempt conviction. This case created the proper legislative purpose test: Congress cannot hold a hearing unless there is a proper legislative purpose. It established Congress’s power to inquire and to enforce that power. Finally, they held that witnesses may refuse to answer where the bounds of the power are exceeded or the questions are not pertinent to the matter under inquiry.  This ruling established a presumption that congressional investigations have a legislative purpose. Watkins v. United States     The House Un-American Activities Committee decided it could call witnesses to testify about Communist Party infiltration into American society and their involvement in the organization. This was a case brought to the SCOTUS after John Watkins was convicted for failing to answer questions while posed as a witness relating to people he may have known to be Communists. The United States Code provides that is an offense for a witness to refuse to answer question "pertinent to the question under inquiry." Watkins claimed he had not been given sufficient time to ascertain whether he could refuse questions or not; thus branding his conviction unlawful. As a result of the appeal, a panel decided to overturn Watkins' conviction. Chief Justice Earl Warren supported Watkins' views, saying that the power of the Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations, and that there was no authority given to expose individuals' private affairs. Barenblatt v. United States    During hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Lloyd Barenblatt refused to answer questions concerning his political and religious beliefs. He was found in contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with the committee investigation. Question: Did the House Committee's investigation into Barenblatt's affiliations with the Communist Party transgress his First Amendment protections which limit congressional inquiries? Conclusion: The divided Court found that the Committee's actions did not violate the First Amendment and upheld Barenblatt's conviction for contempt of Congress. Justice Harlan noted that the First Amendment does not protect a witness from all lines of questioning. As long as the Congressional inquiry is pursued to "aid the legislative process" and to protect important government interests, then it is legitimate. South Carolina v. Katzenbach    This is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected a challenge by the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the US. The Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act was a valid exercise of Congress’ power under the Enforcement Clause. Upholding the Voting Rights Act has a marked effect on closing the gap between white and black voter registration rates. This ruling greatly enhanced Congress’s amendment-enforcing power, placing it on the same level as implied powers. Bush v. Gore    This case involved a recount in the 2000 presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore. The Supreme Court ruled that the recount process is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount. When a court issues a statewide remedy, there must be some assurance that the requirement of equal treatment is satisfied.  The Supreme Court ruled that it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection without substantial additional work. They also determined that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional, and because of this, they reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida which ordered a recount to proceed.  The central question in this case was whether the president, without congressional action, could issue an executive order through the US attorney general to authorize a body guard to protect Justice Field. The Court ruled that this was Constitutional. The Court adopted the “general grant” perspective of executive power. The justices held that the president has the constitutional power to take those actions necessary to enforce the laws of the nation, even if the Constitution does not provide an explicit authorization for doing so. In re Neagle   Clinton v. City of New York    The line-item veto allowed the president to cancel particular taxing and spending provisions after they were signed into law. The Line Item Veto Act was passed in 1996 and made this official. The Court ruled against Clinton. The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved or rejected by the President. The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers. Myers v. U.S.     Frank Myers was a postmaster who was believed to have committed fraud. Woodrow Wilson concluded that he should be removed from office. Myers complained that his removal was illegal because Wilson had not received the approval of the Senate for the dismissal. The question is whether or not the act unconstitutionally restricts the president’s power because it requires Senate approval. Chief Justice Taft concluded that the power to remove appointed officers is vested in the President alone. According to Taft, to deny the President that power would not allow him to "discharge his own constitutional duty of seeing that the laws be faithfully executed." The provision of the law that denies the president the unrestricted power of removal of first class postmasters is in violation of the Constitution. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States     In 1914 Congress created the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce antitrust laws and prevent unfair methods of commercial competition. William Humphrey was named commissioner of FTC, but when FDR took office, he asked him to resign. FDR fired him. The question here is where the FTC Act restricted the president’s removal power. The Supreme Court found that the FTC act was constitutional and that the dismissal was unjustified.   The Court distinguished between officials who exercise purely executive powers and those who carry out quasi legislative and quasi-judicial functions. Those who exercise executive powers serve at the pleasure of the president and may be removed at his discretion. The latter may be removed only with procedures consistent with conditions enacted by Congress. The FTC was different because it was a body created by Congress to perform quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions. Therefore, the Myers precedent did not apply. Preference based interpretation- nomination of Gorsuch. Essentially the justices of SC have attitudes that affect their outcomes. They often lie when asked if they have a preference, they say the will apply the law. Abstract and concrete- article 3 says fed courts have jurisdiction over cases or controversies. Means there must be an actual issue dividing the parties. Concrete judicial review. There must be a real case. Abstract- in France, after legislative branch, any member can file a complaint and it’s heard before constitutional council. We cannot do that. In practice, we have to have a real, live controversy. The immigration order question is whether there is a genuine controversy. Trigger or coverage formula- 1965 civil rights act which was passed pursuant to the 15 th amendment, idea was how are we going to enforce voting rights? Triggering formula is if your voting performance is below a certain level, any state covered by that had to submit their laws for approval to the DOJ. Power to enforce their laws was limited. Term limits- understand the idea of term limits might be and why they were proposed and held to be unconstitutional without an amendment. ID’s would be good to cite a case with it. More interested in the concept rather than the case, however. Marbury v Madison, Baker v. Carr, McCulloch v. Maryland are the 3 Megacept cases. 2nd hypothetical- need to understand all of contingencies. Federal power allocation, look in Article I, Section 8. Enumerates the powers of the congress of the US. States have presumptive powers. The two big powers always mentioned when relying on this article are the powers to regulate commerce and the power to tax and spend for the general welfare and common defense of the power. Start here. Do you go to necessary and proper as restrictive or as a liberalizing authority? McCardle- removed appellate jurisdiction mainly because they don’t like it. Silent/direct gerrymandering- if a legislature allocates the seats proportionate to population so that each of the seats had the same number of people. Silent means you don’t do anything at all over time, you will have a transfer of population from suburban to rural areas. Massive transfer in Texas to DFW area. Silent is the fact that if you do nothing, you won’t have equal rep. Direct is when you draw the lines with an intention of gerrymandering. Under Baker v. Carr, you can’t do it deliberately based on population. Question is what if they do it for partisan reasons? Is this a political or judicial question? Quasi legislative/judicial functions- legislative branch cannot handle all details of specific regulations and rules. So, congress passes a general law that says they will regulate etc, and hereby vest in these agencies the authority to carry out this policy into regulations. These agencies have the power to issue rules and regulations that apply to the nitty gritty of these regulations. Once an agency is created, it carries the broad rules of the law into effect. Textual basis for the constitution, the people who are originalists say we go to original language and try to ascertain what it meant when it was written (meaning) or we go to intentions expressed by the people who wrote the provisions (intent). Hypotheticals: One question will be on the whole idea of partisan gerrymandering. Look at that in reference to Colegrove v green in 1946 and baker v Carr in 1962. Whole Q is is the apportionment of legislative bodies a judicial or political question? Justice appointed by FDR warned against entering the political thicket. Not business of courts how to allocate the seats under their jurisdiction. One person, one vote. Idea is we have mathematical proportionality for both house and chambers of state legislature. Be able to apply the idea of baker v Carr and the standards set out in this case by Justice Brennan. Outlines the elements for determining when we have a political question and when we have a justiciable question. Partisan gerrymandering- can you creatively come up with an objective standard that would apply to state legislatures? Must create politically neutral districts. P Gerry means whoever controls state legislature can affect boundaries in a way that affects them. Should courts engage in process to create politically neutral districts? Page 101. Second one is an application of McCulloch. Idea of necessary and proper and how we interpret the scope of power of congress. Taking into account the supremacy clause in article 6. These two give us a vast grant of power to congress. All treaties under the authority of US shall also be supreme law of the land.