ConstitutionalLawOutline.docx

ConstitutionalLawOutline.docx

《ConstitutionalLawOutline.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ConstitutionalLawOutline.docx（60页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

ConstitutionalLawOutlineRichards,Fall2005

OriginsofConstitutionalLaw[classnotes1-4]

·Britainwasbasedonaparliamentarysupremacysystem,butAmericansviewedBritishasuntruetotheirconstitutionalguarantees.Thisfeelinginformedtherevolution,whichmustbeunderstoodasaconstitutionalrevolution.

·Oncedrafted,MadisonwasprofoundlydisappointedwiththeConstitution,forfailuretoprotecthumanrights,specificallywithregardstoreligionandslavery.HeviewedthedocumentasmorallybankruptandfeltthatitwouldultimatelydestroyAmerica.Additionallywasconcernedaboutprotectingpeopleagainstlibertyviolationsfromstates,whichheviewedasathreat.

oPostMadison,Americans,especiallyinthesouth,begintoacceptconstitutionalismwithslavery.Madison’spleasareoverlookedandforgotten.

oReconstructionAmendmentsfinallyallownationalpowertobeusedagainstthestates（specificallythe14thAmendment）,inanefforttoprotectindividualliberties.Thisbroadviewoftheamendmentsdidnotcatchoninitially,andwasnotfullyrealizeduntilpost-WWII,butitwasusedfromthestartasatooltoprotectirrationalracism.

oKingandthecivilrightsmovementhelptofullyrealizethe14thAmendmentasaguaranteeofhumanrights.

ConstitutionalInterpretation[classnotes,readingnotes]

·ConstitutionalInterpretationbytheJudiciary,andJudicialReview

oMarburyv.Madison（US1803）[Guntherp.3,readingnotes1,classnotes4-7]

§ConsiderstheentitlementofMarburytoanappointment,thatwasnotrealizedwithacommissionbythesubsequentJeffersonadministration.

§ThecourtfindsthatMarburyhasarighttothecommissionasamatteroflaw,thereisaremedyatlaw,butfailstograntmandamusafterfindingthatthedisputewasimproperlybeforetheSupremeCourtonoriginaljurisdiction–deniesrelief.

§Caseisimportantforitcreatestheconceptofjudicialreview.MarshalldeniesreliefbecausehethinksthattheJudiciaryActof1789’sgrantoforiginaljurisdictionformandamusisnotconsistentwithArticleIIIoftheConstitution,whichoutlinesinstanceswheretheSupremeCourtistohaveoriginaljurisdiction.Thusthereisalsoastrongargumentforconstitutionalsupremacy.

oMcCullochv.Maryland（US1819）[book90,reading7-8,class5]

§Congresscharteredanationalbank,withbranchesinvariousstates.Marylandenactedataxtobeleviedagainstthenationalbankbranchinthestate.

§Marshall,forthecourt,findsthatthestatetaxingofthefederalbankisunconstitutional,forithinderstheexerciseofnationalpower.Whilestateshavethepowertotax,theycannotexerciseitinawaythatisinoppositiontothefederalpowers.Herethefederalpowersareconstitutional,notexpressly,butonanimpliedbasis,andthusasthemeansarenarrowlytailoredtoalegitimategoal,judicialdeferenceisinorder.

§Richardsnotesthatthiscasestandsfortheideathattherearesomematterswhicharejudicialinnature,andotherswhichareuniquelypolitical.Whenthelatteristhecase,judicialdeferenceisproper.

oLegislativeandExecutiveexerciseofconstitutionalreviewisnotunheardof.Presidentshaveusedthevetopowertorejectlegislationtheyviewasunconstitutional,Congresshasrejectedlegislationonsimilargrounds,andprosecutorialdiscretionandthepardonpowerhavebeenusedtomitigatetheeffectsoflawviewedasunconstitutional.[Class7,book22-27]

·DemocraticObjectionstoJudicialReview[class7-13]

oJefferson

§Arguedthatthebranchesofgovernmentarecoequal,andhavenoauthoritytomakefinalconstitutionaldecisionsforeachother.RejectedMarburyv.Madison,andtheconceptofjudicialreview–thoughrightsclearlyexist,theyonlybindthelegislature.Branchesareonlyaccountabletothepeople.

oCourtSkepticApproach–Thayer

§ThreestagesofThayer’sperspective:

·Judicialreviewisaninferredpowerfromtheconstitution

·Thepowerofjudicialreviewislimitedtojudicialcontexts–anisonlyappropriatewhennecessarytodecideaconstitutionalissue

·Courtmustbedeferentialinthereview.Courtshouldoperatebytheruleofclearmistake–onlyfindinglegislativeactsunconstitutionalwhentheyareclearlyerroneous.Thus,solongasthereisanyconstitutionalbasisforthelaw,courtsshoulddefer）.

§Thayerdoesnotviewcourtsastheprimaryenforcersofhumanrights,butrather,asalastresortwhenthereisnotothermeansofkeepingtheconstitutionalstructureintact.Believesstronglyinanengagedcitizenrythatvigilantlydefendsitsrights.

oRightsSkepticApproach–Hand

§TwopartstoHand’sperspective,whichcomesfromhisworkBillofRights:

·Judicialreviewofcongressionallegislationisausurpation（fromhistory）

·Rightsdonotexist,thusjudicialreviewtovalidatethemisinvalid（politicaltheory）.Believesthatrightsarenotlogical（withrespecttoutilitarianprinciplesofmaximizingbenefitsforthemajority）,andaretoosubjective（whichleadsthecourttobecomingathirdlegislativechamber）.

oWeschlercritiquesHand’sperspective–arguesthatjudicialreviewisappropriatesolongasitapproachesitfromneutralperspectivesofconstitutionallaw.FocusesonHand’scontentionthatinpractice,itamountstocourtsbeingthirdlegislativechambers–contendsthattheproceduraladherencetoneutralprinciples,inarbitratingactualcontroversies,mitigatesagainstthisfinding.Weschlerthough,wouldfindnoneutralprincipleinBrown,butwouldinPlessy.

§RichardsquestionsWeschler’sformulation,asevenneutralprinciplescangiverisetoresultsthatdevaluehumanrights–

i.e.NaziGermany,Plessy.

oDworkinengagestheskepticalobjectionstojudicialreview:

·CourtSkepticalChallenge–rightsexist,butcourtsdonotgiveusthebestreadingofwhattheyare.

·RightSkepticalChallenge–basedonautilitarianapproach,whichdoesn’tacknowledgetheexistenceofrights.Subsequently,judicialreviewtoenforcerightsisillegitimate.

§DworkinarguesthatyoumusthaveacoherentpoliticalphilosophyininterpretingtheConstitution,andonsomelevelrejectsboththecourtandrightsskeptic

challenges（thoughthelegislativebranchcanoftenaidindefiningthescopeofrights）.Arguesthatconstitutionallawshouldbeaimedatprotectingbasichumanrights,butshoulddosofromargumentsofprinciple;thus,hesupportstheconceptofjudicialreview.

§Dworkinarguesthatthemeasurecomesfromhardcases.Firstlooktofit,todeterminehowadecisionwillfitwithexistingprecedent（inhardcasesthiswon’tendtheinquiry,astheprecedentisindisarray）.Mustthenlooktobackgroundrights,whicharetheconstitutionalrightsthatshouldbeprotected.

oRemainingformsofskepticism

§JohnHartEly–arguesthatjudicialreviewisonlyappropriatewhenthereareproblemsinrepresentation,astheproductsofafairprocedureareunreachablebythecourts.Brownandreapportionmentareacceptableresults,asracialstereotypesgiventheforceoflawhurtrepresentation,butRoev.Wadeisnot,aswomenhavetherighttovote（andareamajority）,andfetusesareunrepresented.Properweightmustbegiventotheinterestsofallcitizenswhenpassinglegislationthataffectsthem.Minoritiesvictimizedbyprejudiceinawaythatharmsrepresentationmaygiverisetojudicialreview:

·Explicitprejudice–invidiousracehatred

o{wouldnotunderstandseparatebutequal}

·Impliedprejudice–lawbasedonstereotypes

o{doesnotappreciatedehumanizingnatureofbenignstereotypesasinCraigv.Boren}

{Richardscritique–onceremovedutilitarianism}

§Originalist–arguesthatcasesshouldbedecidedasfounderswouldhaveinterpreted–thusopposesjudicialinterventiontoenforcemodernviewsofrights.

·Richardscritique:

Notesthatthetextdoesnotrequireit,anditgoesagainstthewayinwhichthefounderswrotethetext–broad.Betterisanapproachthatrespectsthetext,judicialinterpretation,andevolvingsocialcontextsandnorms.Fivekeyjustificationsforrejectingoriginalism:

oPresenceofindefiniteclausessuggestthefoundersintenttoleavethemopentointerpretation

oMustallowforchangingcircumstances,andnotbindfuturegenerationstohistoricaldenotations

oConstitutionwasenactedandgroundedinenduringprinciplesofjustice–mustacknowledgetheabstractintentionsoffounders.

oAbroadviewisessentialformeaningfuljudicialinterpretation

oTheoriginalistemphasisonpopularsovereigntyisdangerousforhumanandminorityrights.

·TheRoleofHistoryinjudicialinterpretation–OriginalismIsn’tReallyFollowed

oWilliamsv.Florida（1970）asanexampleoftheproblematicnatureoforiginalisthistory.

§ThecasedealtwiththeconstitutionalityofasixmemberjuryinFloridafornon-capitalcriminalcases.ThecourtlookedtothehistoryoftheSixthAmendment,andultimatelydeterminedthatajuryof12wasnotrequired.Howshould“jury”beinterpreted?

·Canlooktothetext

oCanbedenotative–i.e.denotingwhatisbeingreferredto–hereclearlytheunanimous12personjury.

oCanbeconnotative–i.e.conveyingthatwhichislogicallyrelatedtowhatisreferredto–hereabodyofsizeenoughtodojusticeinadeliberativefashion.

·Canlooktotheprecedentanddeterminewhatweightitshouldhave

§White,forthecourt,adoptedaconnotativemeaningofjury,findingthatwhatwasmeantwasajuryofthesizeenoughtobedeliberative,andrepresentativeofthecommunity.

§Harlan’sopinionarguesthattheoriginalistunderstanding（here,a12personjury）shouldnotbedepartedfromunlessthereisacompellingreason.

oLovettv.UnitedStates（1946）[class