+
Related Flashcards
Related Topics
Cards In This Set
| Front | Back |
|
Maybury V madison?What did this establish?What was the precedent, and how was it later used?(1) Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions?(2) Can they sue for their commissions in court?(3) Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?
|
Yes, yes, no. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the unanimous opinion. (1) The Supreme Court held that the Constitution grants the president the power to appoint and commission officers of the United States. Because the only evidence of the appointment is the commission, the two actions are tied together. Without the commission, the appointment is not complete, and so the president’s signature on the commission is the final step in the appointment process. (2) The Court also held that, upon appointment, the officers have acquired rights to their positions under the law. If those rights are denied, then they may seek redress in the courts. (3) Marbury and others sought an original action for their commissions in the Supreme Court. But the congressional act conferring that authority conflicts with Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. The judicial power in the United States extends to all cases under the Constitution and the Supreme Court is bound to decide cases according to the Constitution rather than the law when the two conflict. So if a law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, then the law is invalid. In this case, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act ran counter to the Constitution and is therefore void. Thus, lacking authority, the Supreme Court canceled Marbury's claim. established judicial review
|
|
Schecter Poutlry V Sawyer What was outcome?What was the precedent?
|
The Court held that Section 3 was "without precedent" and violated the Constitution. The law did not establish rules or standards to evaluate industrial activity. In other words, it did not make codes, but simply empowered the President to do so. A unanimous Court found this to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority
Section 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act empowered the President to implement industrial codes to regulate weekly employment hours, wages, and minimum ages of employees. The codes had standing as penal statutes. |
|
Youngstown Sheet and Tube V. Sawyer
|
Facts of the caseIn April of 1952, during the Korean War, President Truman issued an executive order directing Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and operate most of the nation's steel mills. This was done in order to avert the expected effects of a strike by the United Steelworkers of America.• Non Delegation Doctrine• National Industrial Recovery Act 1933• In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the President did not have the authority to issue such an order. The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property. The Court also held that the President's military power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces did not extend to labor disputes. The Court argued that "the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker."• Hughes Decided•
|
|
US v Curtiss WrightCurtiss-Wright was charged with conspiring to sell machine guns to Boliva. Chaco
|
The Court agreed that the President was allowed much room to operate in executing the Joint Resolution; it found no constitutional violation. Making important distinctions between internal and foreign affairs, Justice Sutherland argued because "the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation," Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discretion in external matters which would not be afforded domestically.If the president thinks a prohibition on arms sales will create peace, then he is free to enact that.The president can recognize an ambassador, which gives them the ability to recognize countries
|
|
McCullough v MarylandTaxing a state bankIn 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.
|
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the Constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them." Supreme Clause Article VI paragraph 2-upholding national power over state powerNecessary and proper clause Art I Section 8 paragraph 18-creating implied powers for the national government10th amendment-used for implied powers of the national government
|
|
Necessary and Proper Clause10th AmmendmentJohn Marshall CourtExpress and implied powers
|
He clause has been paired with the Commerce Clause to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of federal laws. For instance, various reforms involved in the New Deal were found to be necessary and proper enactments of the objective of regulating interstate commerce.[10]Indeed, the influence of the Necessary and Proper Clause and its broader interpretation under McCulloch v. Maryland in American jurisprudence can be seen in cases generally thought to simply involve the Commerce Clause.
|
|
Luther V BordenGuarantee ClauseThreshold Decisions
|
"The United States shall garuntee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"This is often called the Guaranty Clause The Court held that "the power of determining that a state government has been lawfully established" did not belong to federal courts, and that it was not the function of such courts to prescribe the qualifications for voting in the States. The Court held that the creation of republican forms of government and the control of domestic violence were matters of an essentially political nature committed by the Constitution to the other branches of government. Hence, the Court should defer to Congress and the President when confronted with such issues.
|
|
INS v ChadhaChadha was an East Indian student who had overstayed his visa and was deportable. The Attorney General suspended his deportation. The House passed a resolution that Chadha should be deported because he did not meet the hardship requirement.
|
The Court held that the particular section of the Act in question did violate the Constitution. Recounting the debates of the Constitutional Convention over issues of bicameralism and separation of powers, Chief Justice Burger concluded that even though the Act would have enhanced governmental efficiency, it violated the "explicit constitutional standards" regarding lawmaking and congressional authority.
|
|
Threshold Decision Doctrine
|
The Court broadened this ruling in Baker v Carr (1962), when it held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and/or the Legislative Branch.The Court in Nixon v. United States (1993) also extended this doctrine to which lawsuits which challenge the Legislative Branch's procedure for impeachment proceedings.Further, the Supreme Court has chosen to apply the doctrine in more cases related to the Executive Branch than in cases related to the Legislative Branch.
|
|
Special Investigator
|
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
|
|
4 Horsemen
|
The "Four Horsemen" was the nickname given by the press[1] to four conservative members of the United States Supreme Courtduring the 1932–1937 terms, who opposed the New Deal agenda of President Franklin Roosevelt.[2] They were Justices Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter. They were opposed by the liberal "Three Musketeers"—Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and Harlan Stone. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts controlled the balance. Hughes was more inclined to join the liberals, but Roberts was often swayed to the side of the conservatives.[3]:283
|
|
Cooper v Erin
|
All 9 justices landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the states are bound by the Court's decisions and must enforce them even if the states disagreed with them.
|
|
Deshaney
|
Due Process, Determined what was garunteed in reference to due and sole processes. Does not garurntee rather the constitution says what the government cant do.
|
|
Nixon V USWalter Nixon, a Federal District Judge, was convicted of a felony, making false statements to a grand jury. The House of Representatives voted three articles of impeachment; impeachment in the Senate followed. In accordance with Senate Rule XI, a Senate committee heard the evidence and reported its findings. The full Senate convicted Nixon and sought to remove him from office. Nixon challenged Senate Rule XI in federal court on the ground that the rule violated the impeachment clause of the Constitution, which declares that "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The lower courts deemed the issue nonjusticiable and declined to intervene in the dispute.QuestionIs Nixon's claim -- that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause -- justiciable, i.e., appropriate for judicial resolution?
|
No. A unanimous Court held that the question of whether or not the Senate rule violated the U.S. Constitution was nonjusticiable since the Impeachment clause expressly granted that the "Senate shall have sole Power to try any impeachments." The clause laid out specific regulations that were to be followed and as long as those guidelines were observed the courts would not rule upon the validity of other Senate procedures regarding impeachments. Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed that while the Supreme Court was the "ultimate intrepreter of the Constitution," a matter would be deemed nonjusticiable when there was "a constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department."
|
|
Explain how John Marshall accomplished his goals by strengtehing state gove is weakened, and fed is strengthend and the intrgrity of the court
|
Ajor Goals of Marshall
|
