+
Related Topics
Cards In This Set
| Front | Back |
|
Racial set asides must pass strict scrutiny:
|
Any gvtl action that is explicitly race-based must be “necessary” to achieve a “compelling” govtl interest. If enacted by a city/state, subject to strict scrutiny - usually found unconstl on EP grounds.
|
|
For a congressional statute to be valid:
|
must be enacted within Congress’s enumerated powers, or it must be necessary and proper to effectuate an enumerated power.
|
|
Commerce Clause, Art. I, Sec. 8:
|
gives congress exceptionally broad powers to regulate interstate commerce; under affectation doctrine, Congress can regulate any activity that has any appreciable direct or indirect effect on interstate commerce. [
|
|
Welfare Clause Art I, Sec. 8:
|
Only empowers Congress to COLLECT TAXES AND SPEND MONEY for general welfare (so if statute is just regulatory [no money involved] -->this clause does not apply!
|
|
Prior to viability, the state does not have a compelling state interest in preserving fetal life.
|
The fetus is not yet viable in any pregnancies that have gone beyond the first trimester (typically, viability occurs late in 2nd or early 3rd trimester).
|
|
A woman’s right to reproductive choice – and to not be “unduly burdened” in the exercise of that reproductive choice – extends beyond the first trimester, all the way to viability.
|
Before viability, the state’s interest in fetal life is not compelling.
|
|
State passes statute that permits a woman to have an abortion on demand during the first trimester of pregnancy but prohibits a woman from having an abortion after that time UNLESS her physician determines that the abortion is necessary to protect the woman’s life or health. If challenged on constl grounds in an appropriate ct, this statute will probably be held:
|
UNCONSTITUTIONAL b/c the state has, without adequate justification, placed an undue burden on the fundamental right of a woman to reproductive choice prior to fetal viability.
|
|
Art III. Case and controversy reqt:
|
Federal cts can only render opinions where there is an actual controversy – cannot offer advisory opinion. Matter in controversy must be: 1. Definite and concrete, 2. Touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, and 3. Must be a real and substantial controversy capable of specific relief through a DECREE OF CONLUSIVE CHARACTER.
|
|
Bases of federal ct jurisidcition: federal question juris:
|
Cases which arise under constitution, or a federal law or treaty - by itself, this alone does not determine if fed ct can hear the case. P must have standing to present claim in question, and there must be a case or controversy. The federal court must RESOLVE the dispute, not render opinions which will be taken under advisement by the administrator of a fed agency dispersing federal funds.
|
|
11th A: bars a citizen from suing a state in federal ct without that state’s consent
|
It does NOT bar federal court suits by the fed govt against the STATES
|
|
If conduct of foreign relations is basis of suit:
|
A nonjusticiable political question, requires suit to be dismissed!
|
|
To be enforceable, an agmt must:
|
be supported by consideration, or some substitute for consideration (promissory estoppel). Consideration requires a bargained for exchange and either detriment to the promisee or benefit to the promisor, and typically both.
|
|
Consideration only inadequate if:
|
It doesn’t represent the “price” of the bargain [there’s a donative promise in guise of a legal enforceable one]
|
|
Seeking performance (not a promise in return) =
|
A unilateral K.
|
|
Doctrine of impossibility:
|
Where circumstances unanticipated by the parties make K performance vitally different from what the parties contemplated, their duties under the K are discharged, UNLESS the adversely affected party assumed the risk the contingency might happen.
|
