Term
|
Definition
| is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review, and possible invalidation, by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Judicial review is an example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary is one of three branches of government) |
|
|
Term
| Minersville School District v. Gobitis |
|
Definition
| was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the religious rights of public school students under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that public schools could compel students—in this case, Jehovah's Witnesses—to salute the American Flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite the students' religious objections to these practices. This decision led to increased persecution of Witnesses in the United States. The Supreme Court overruled this decision a mere three years later, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette |
|
|
Term
| Amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) |
|
Definition
| is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court". |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional", and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the U.S. Bank. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution. This fundamental case established the following two principles:
The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government. |
|
|
Term
| Who were the Federalist Papers written by? |
|
Definition
| The Federalist papers were written by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay to influence the public to favor the ratification of the Constitution |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
This section of six chapters deals with the proposed structure of federal courts, their powers and jurisdiction, the method of appointing judges, and related matters.
A first important consideration was the manner of appointing federal judges, and the length of their tenure in office. They should be appointed in the same way as other federal officers, which had been discussed before. As to tenure, the Constitution proposed that they should hold office "during good behaviour," a provision to be found in the constitutions of almost all the states. As experience had proved, there was no better way of securing a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the law. To perform its functions well, the judiciary had to remain "truly distinct" from both the legislative and executive branches of the government, and act as a check on both.
There had been some question — Hamilton called it a "perplexity," as well he might — about the rights of the courts to declare a legislative act null and void if, in the court's opinion, it violated the Constitution. It was argued that this implied a "superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power." Not at all, Hamilton argued. The courts had to regard the Constitution as fundamental law, and it was, therefore, the responsibility of the courts "to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." The same should apply to actions taken by the executive.
In this essay Hamilton discussed the question of whether the Supreme Court should have the authority to declare acts of Congress null and void because, in the Court's opinion, they violated the Constitution. Hamilton answered in the affirmative; such a power would tend to curb the "turbulence and follies of democracy." But others have disagreed with Hamilton about this. Among those who have wished to curtail the Supreme Court's power to invalidate acts of Congress have been Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The issue is still a live one, as is evident from the heated debates of recent years. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Nothing contributed more to the independence of judges than a "fixed provision for their support." Hamilton repeated here what he had said in regard to the executive, that "in the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." The Constitution therefore wisely proposed that the salaries of federal judges could "not be diminished during their continuance in office," though they might be increased at the discretion of Congress. There should be no provision for removing judges because of alleged "inability," except in cases of insanity. Nor should there be any mandatory age for retirement. Older and more experienced judges were very often the better ones. In arguing that the independence of judges could only be assured by making a fixed provision for their support, Hamilton made a profound and realistic social observation: "In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." This is as true of private as of public life. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| As to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, they should have the authority to overrule state laws contravening the Constitution. They should have the power to enforce uniformity in the interpretation of national laws. They should have jurisdiction in all cases involving citizens of other nations. And most important in assuring domestic order and tranquillity, federal courts should have jurisdiction in conflicts between the states, such as on boundary disputes. They should have jurisdiction in determining causes between one state and the citizens of another, and between the citizens of different states. Only federal courts could impartially judge such cases. The national judiciary should also have jurisdiction in maritime cases, for the latter often involved the rights of foreigners, rights assured to them by treaties which were per se part of the supreme law of the land. This essay on why the United States Supreme Court should have the authority to overrule state laws which in its judgment contravened the Constitution, and to enforce uniformity in the interpretation of national laws, is self-explanatory. Was there to be a national law, or not? If so desired, there was only one way to accomplish this. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (SDP for short) is an aspect of American jurisprudence under the Due Process Clause, involving substantive unenumerated rights. SDP is to be distinguished from procedural due process, which involves procedural unenumerated rights. The term "substantive due process", is commonly used in two ways: first to identify a particular line of case law, and second to signify a particular attitude toward judicial review under the Due Process Clause. The term "substantive due process" was first explicitly used in 1930s legal casebooks as a categorical distinction of selected due process cases, and by 1950 had been mentioned twice in Supreme Court opinions. SDP involves liberty-based due process challenges which seek certain outcomes instead of merely contesting procedures and their effects; in such cases, the Supreme Court recognizes a constitutionally-based "liberty" which then renders laws seeking to limit said "liberty" either unenforceable or limited in scope. Any application of the Bill of Rights to State action, as opposed to federal action, is a form of substantive due process. Most rights included in the Bill of Rights are incorporated against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Challenging a state law on free speech grounds, for example, requires the plaintiff to assert a Fourteenth Amendment claim. Critics of SDP decisions usually assert that those liberties ought to be left to the more politically accountable branches of government. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| incorporated the Bill of Rights, covered by the 14th Amendment |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review, and possible invalidation, by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Judicial review is an example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary is one of three branches of government). This principle is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, which also have differing views on the different hierarchy of governmental norms. As a result, the procedure and scope of judicial review differs from country to country and state to state. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| cases supreme ct must hear |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| cases that the supreme ct can choose to hear |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (which means "we command" in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly". Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| ("to be more fully informed") is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare ("to show, prove, or ascertain"). A writ of certiorari currently means an order by a higher court directing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send the record in a given case for review. Often used by the Supreme Court to influence future cases this writ goes hand in hand with the writ of habeas corpus. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in private businesses (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal". |
|
|
Term
| Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada |
|
Definition
| was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that states that provide a school to white students must provide in-state education to blacks as well. States can satisfy this requirement by allowing blacks and whites to attend the same school or creating a second school for blacks. The Law School at the University of Missouri refused admission to Lloyd Gaines because he was an African-American. At the time there was no Law School specifically for African-Americans. Gaines cited that this refusal violated his Fourteenth Amendment right. The state of Missouri had offered to pay for Gaines’ tuition at an adjacent state’s law school, which he turned down. This decision does not quite strike down separate but equal education as upheld in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Instead, it provides that if there is only a single school, students of all races are eligible for admission, thereby striking down segregation by exclusion where the government provides just one school. Though this case didn’t go as far as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) would, it was a step in that direction. |
|
|
Term
| Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka |
|
Definition
| 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students and denying black children equal educational opportunities unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which permitted segregation. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement. |
|
|
Term
| Adkins v. Children's Hospital |
|
Definition
| 261 U.S. 525 (1923), is a Supreme Court opinion holding that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract, as protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Adkins was overturned in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). In 1918, Congress passed a law setting minimum wages for women and children in the District of Columbia. As in other cases, the question was one of balancing the police power of Congress to regulate health and safety with the right of individuals to conduct their own affairs without legislative interference. Children's Hospital and a female elevator operator at a hotel brought this case to prevent enforcement of the act by Jesse C. Adkins and the two other members of a wage board. |
|
|
Term
| West Coast Hotel v. Parrish |
|
Definition
| 300 U.S. 379 (1937), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of minimum wage legislation enacted by the State of Washington, overturning an earlier decision in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923). Elsie Parrish, a chambermaid working at the Cascadian Hotel in Wenatchee, Washington (owned by the West Coast Hotel Company), along with her husband, sued the hotel for the difference between what she was paid, and the $14.50 per week of 48 hours established as a minimum wage by the Industrial Welfare Committee and Supervisor of Women in Industry, pursuant to Washington state law. The trial court, using Adkins as precedent, ruled for the defendant. The Washington Supreme Court, taking the case on a direct appeal, reversed the trial court and found in favor of Parrish. The hotel appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. |
|
|
Term
| United States v. Carolene Products Company |
|
Definition
| 304 U.S. 144 (1938),[1] was an April 25, 1938 decision by the United States Supreme Court. The case dealt with a federal law that prohibited filled milk (skimmed milk compounded with any fat or oil other than milk fat, so as to resemble milk or cream) from being shipped in interstate commerce. The defendant argued that the law was unconstitutional on both Commerce Clause and due process grounds. Footnote Four introduced the idea of levels of judicial scrutiny. In keeping with the New Deal Revolution, Footnote Four established the rational basis test for economic legislation, an extremely low standard of judicial review. The "rational basis test" mandates that legislation (whether enacted by Congress or state legislatures) which deals with economic regulation must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 302 U.S. 319 (1937),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy. In 1935, Frank Palka (whose name was misspelled as Palko in Court documents), a Connecticut resident, broke into a local music store and stole a phonograph, proceeded to flee on foot, and when cornered by law enforcement, killed two police officers and made his escape. He was captured a month later.[2] Palko had been charged with first-degree murder but was instead convicted of the lesser offense of second-degree murder and given a sentence of life imprisonment. Prosecutors appealed per Connecticut law and won a new trial, in which Palko was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Palko appealed, arguing that the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy applied to state governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court had previously held in the Slaughterhouse cases that the protections of the Bill of Rights should not be applied to the states under the Privileges or Immunities clause, but Palko held that since the infringed right fell under a due process protection, Connecticut still acted in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Are civil rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights. Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from slavery and forced labor, freedom from torture and death, the right to liberty and security, freedom of conscience, religion, expression, press, assembly and association, speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment and due process and the right to a fair trial. More disputed but commonly accepted in purpose are the right to life (i.e. as opposed to the state's right to punish), the right to own property, the right to defend one's self, the right to bodily integrity, and the right to keep and bear arms |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| are the protections and privileges of personal power and rights given to all citizens by law. Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights," also sometimes called "our God-given rights." Civil Rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born. For example, the philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) argued that the natural rights of life, liberty and property should be converted into civil rights and protected by the sovereign state as an aspect of the social contract. Others have argued that people acquire rights as an inalienable gift from the deity or at a time of nature before governments were formed. |
|
|
Term
| Supremacy Powers of the Federal Government |
|
Definition
| establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. |
|
|
Term
| Implied Powers of the Federal Government |
|
Definition
| in the United States, are those powers authorized by a legal document (from the Constitution) which, while not stated, seem to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United States against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.[2] Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school.
It was a significant court victory won by Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, including symbols of political institutions. However, the Court did not address the effect the compelled salutation and recital ruling had upon their particular religious beliefs, but instead ruled that the state did not have the power to compel speech in that manner for anyone.
Barnette overruled a 1940 decision on the same issue, Minersville School District v. Gobitis (also involving the children of Jehovah's Witnesses), in which the Court stated that the proper recourse for dissent was to try to change the school policy democratically.
However, in overruling Gobitis the Court primarily relied on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Free Exercise Clause |
|
|
Term
| Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States |
|
Definition
| was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the Constitution's Commerce Clause power to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Focus's on the vested powers that lie in certain parties. The vesting clause establishes certain powers to certain parties i.e. the House of Representatives and The Senate |
|
|
Term
| Article One Section Eight |
|
Definition
| Enumerated powers of the federal government. |
|
|
Term
| Marshall Asked in the Maryland case: does congress have implied powers along with enumerated powers? |
|
Definition
Section 8, Clause 18 - Necessary and Proper Clause
- Also known as the elastic clause , this gives Congress all the powers it needs to carry out its enumerated powers. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| there will be one Supreme Court of the US and other lower courts that Congress feels needed; Judges are appointed to their office for a term of "good behavior" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Judicial power; law and equality arising under the Consitution, laws of the US, treaties, cases affecting Ambassadors and other public ministers, if the US is a party, between 2 or more states, citizens of different states; in all other- appellate jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
| Article III Section Three |
|
Definition
| treason against the US, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
person bringing the action: X
person defedning against the action: Y |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| murder, robbery, state of ____ v. a person |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| no criminal law, lawsuit, student v. rutgers, no question of criminality |
|
|
Term
| What is the trial court responsible for? |
|
Definition
| For making assumption for fact and law. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| this constitution, the laws of the united states which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all states which shall be made, under the authority of the united states, shall be in the supreme law od the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (1st) Trial Courts (US District) > US Court of Appeals > Supreme Court |
|
|
Term
| The court’s role in policy making is limited: |
|
Definition
1. the court can do only so much with the few decisions they make in a year
- on average only 80 cases a year
2. the actions of other policy makers narrow the impact of the court’s decisions
- the court is seldom the final government institution to deal with the policy issue it addresses
- congress and the president influence how the court’s decisions are planned out
-they can overcome it’s interpretation of federal statutes simply by amending those statutes |
|
|
Term
| The Court as Policy Maker |
|
Definition
- the court’s role in making public policy: the authoritative rules by which people in government institutions seek to influence government itself
- supreme court makes public policy by interpreting provisions of law
- issues of policy come to the court in the form of legal questions
- the courts work as a policy maker differs from that of congress
- addresses these questions in the process of settling specific controversies between parties (sometimes called litigants) that bring cases to it
- every decision by the court has 3 aspects:
1. a judgement about the specific dispute brought to case
2. an interpretation about the legal issues in that dispute
3. a position on the policy questions that are raised by legal issues |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
an attribute as an institution and a policymaker.
- highest court in the federal judicial system
- the court operates within a constraint in which legislators are free
- the justices lifetime appointments allow them some freedom from concerns about whether political leaders and voters approve of their decisions
- justices usually avoid open involvement in because it is perceived as inappropriate
- courts are separate from political processes and and their decisions are affected only by legal considerations
- justices may take congress into account when they decide cases
- the justices political values affect the votes they cast and the opinions they write in the court’s decisions
- the Supreme court should be perceived as both a legal institution and a political institution
- the political processes and the legal system each influence what the court does |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Only about 80 cases in 1 term
· Not arbitrary cases, clearing up existing law
Federal issue |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
entry level (only court with jury trial, findings of fact and law)
Only one that can decide a case based on facts |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
liberal: the notion that individuals heve rights, limit the governmental power
· constitutional: boundaries are laid out, document limits government power
· democracy: people are sovereign and government should be accountable to the people; republican dem.- people rule through elected reps. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Issue of Originalist views (Scalia) vs. Interpretivist views (Breyer)
>originialists believe in sticking to the text of the Constitution
>interpretiivsts do as the name implies, believe that the Constitution should be interpreted based off of the current day.
Originalists belive that the interpretations that Interpretivists make aren't keeping to the original intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution.
Interpretevists believed that it is difficult to have a strict interpretation of the Constitution since some parts of it are greatly outdated (i.e. idea of "cruel and unusual punishment" had different connotations back in the founder's time than it did today) |
|
|
