Study Guides (248,277)
United States (123,312)
POL 3313 (3)
Singer (1)
Midterm

Constitutional Law for MIDTERM

11 Pages
177 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Political Science
Course
POL 3313
Professor
Singer
Semester
Spring

Description
Midterm (50%) and Final (50%) 15 definitions/identifications (4 points each/60 total)– Black’s Law Dictionary 1 hypothetical (40 points) West Law, Lexus: legal research -Articles of Confederation: the first Constitution of the US. The only branch of government was the Congress. Gave too much power to states and not enough to the national government. National government had no power to tax, only state governments did. -Annapolis Convention (1786): Country leaders in Annapolis to amend/ modify the Articles of Confederation. Not enough delegates came and they were not ready, so they adjourned (asked for more time) until a year later in Philadelphia. -Shay’s Rebellion: A rebellion in Massachusetts between the Annapolis and the Philadelphia convention, which greatly influenced the New Constitution. Daniel Shays, (1786-1787) a former military officer for the Americans, against the British, went back to his farm in Massachusetts after the war to realize that the bank was foreclosing it. Because of displeasure with the fact that he had sided with this new country in the War for Independence and was now being penalized for it (and other soldiers having this happen to them), they began a rebellion against the rich (class warfare). This alerted the educated country leaders, who decided to tear up the Articles of Confederation in the Philadelphia Convention to give more power to the federal government to be able to put down the rebellion, and to distibute power more evenly. -Philadelphia/Constitutional Convention: convention in which the current Constitution was created. The country leaders attempted democracy, for the first time, on a national level. -Democracy: government by the people with frequent elections. A type of democracy is what we have today, a representative democracy. -Connecticut Compromise: a compromise at the Philadelphia Convention pursuant to which a bicameral congress was created. Came up with the VA and the NJ plans, and decided on the creation of a two- house legislature (one house will have representation based on population (VA plan – house of reps), and the other would have an equal # of representatives (NJ plan – Senate)). Virginia Plan: a plan proposed by the VA delegation to the Philadelphia Convention pursuant to which representation in Congress would be based upon the population of each state. New Jersey Plan: a plan proposed by the NJ delegation to the Philadelphia Convention pursuant to which representation in Congress would be the same for each state. Bicameralism: principal of a two-house legislature. Three Fifth’s Compromise: A compromise at the Philadelphia convention pursuant to which a slave would count as 3/5ths of a person in order to determine representation of a slave state in the House of Representatives. Representation in the House of Representatives shall be determined by adding to the whole # of free persons, three-fifths of all other persons. Aka slaves (black people) were counted as three-fifths of one person for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives. -Five major elements of the Constitution (C): The chief architect of the C was James Madison. 1. Separation of Powers: division of powers among the three branches of government, i.e. (that is) the executive (presidency), legislative (Congress), judicial (supreme court) 2. Checks and Balances: a political system in which one branch of government can block the other branches. 3. Federalism: the division of power between the national government and the state governments. 4. Bicameralism: principal of a two-house legislature. 5. Bill of Rights: the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. -Jurisdiction: authority of a court to hear and decide a case. -Limitations upon a court’s jurisdiction: [Case or Controversy] -Mootness: the court lacks jurisdiction because although there was a case or controversy in the past, it no longer exists at the present time. -Ripeness: the court lacks jurisdiction because although there may be a case or controversy in the future, it does not yet exist at the present time. -Standing: the plaintiff must have suffered (or will suffer at a soon time) a substantial injury in order for the court to have jurisdiction -Political Question: a question that the court refuses to address because the Constitution gives the power to address this question to one of the other two branches of governments i.e. congress or the president **Executor: named in the will Administrator: government appointed b/c there is no person named in the will -New York State Court System: Lowest: Supreme Court (62 counties with 62 courts) – judge and jury Appellate Division (4 divisions) – judge usually Highest: Court of Appeals (in Albany) – judge *There are also small, more insignificant courts, like small claims, etc. -Federal Court System: Lowest: District Court Court of Appeals Highest: The Supreme Court -Stare decisis (precedent): “Let the decision stand.” A judge who is presented with a case, which has a very similar fact pattern to a prior case that had been decided by a higher court, must come to the same decision as the earlier case. The Supreme Court of the United State does not have to adhere to any precedent – Brown v. Board of Ed. Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. -Common Law: a system of law in Anglo-American countries in which judges have the authority to make law ex. Brown v. Board of Ed. And Roe v. Wade -Civil Law: a system of law in which the judiciary simply interprets statutes passed by the legislature -Opinion: a written decision of a court in which the court issues its decision and explains its reasoning for reaching that decision (I) Facts: What are the facts of the case? The story behind the case. (II) Issue: What is the question that must be resolved? (III) Decision: What was decided? (IV) Rule/Holding: Restatement of the issue in an answer to the issue. (V) Reasoning: How and why that rule was decided. MARBURY V. MADISON (1803) th This case pertains to the National Election of 1800 (the 4 election). Twelve years prior was the first National Election in which George Washington became the leader of the Federalists (his political party). The Federalists interpreted the constitution in a way in which gave more power to the Federal Government, giving the states little power. The opposition to the Federalists were the Democratic- Republicans, whose leader was Thomas Jefferson. During the 2 National Election, Washington won again, keeping power with the Federalists. During these years, the Federalists also won both Houses of Congress. At the time, there were no term- limits for the presidency, but he chose to step down after two terms. In his place, John Adams, Washington’s Vice President, ran and won. During these twelve years, the Federalists also won both Houses of Congress, and elected only Federalists to the Supreme Court. During the Election of 1800, Adams runs for a second turn. Thomas Jefferson runs for the Democratic-Republicans and wins. AND the Democratic-Republicans also win both Houses of Congress. BUT the Supreme Court is still all Federalist. Adams becomes a lame duck (an elected official who must leave office in the th immediate future) from November (when voting takes place) to March 4 . Adams midnight appointed a man named William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace. At this time, there were five official steps: (1) President must nominate the judge, (2) The Senate must confirm the nomination, (3) The President must sign the commission, (4) Secretary of State, who at the time was John Marshall, must place the official seal of the US on the commission, (5) The Secretary of State must have the commission hand-delivered to the newly appointed Judge. Steps 1 and 2 are in the Constitution, whereas 3-5 are required formalities. Steps 1 and 2 were done and not contested, steps 3 and 4 were done on March 3 (the night before his term expired) – these were also not contested, step 5 is the basis of this case. There were 17 non-delivered appointments left on the president’s desk after Jefferson’s had taken over the Presidency. Jefferson’s Secretary of State is Madison, and he decides not to hand-deliver these appointments and give out his own appointments instead. Marbury decided to sue asking the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus (A court order requiring a public official to perform the duties of his/her office); Writ: written order of the court to require his appointment to be hand-delivered. The Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction for this case and had to dismiss. -Judiciary Act of 1789: an act that created the lower courts below the Supreme Court -Section 13 of the Judiciary act of 1789: this section provided that a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus may be commenced directly in the SC rather than in the lower courts -Original Jurisdiction: the authority of a court to hear a new case -Appellate Jurisdiction: the authority of a court to hear a case on appeal Marbury v. Madison (1803) I. Facts Pres. John Adams as a lame duck, nominated William Marbury to be a federal judge in Washington DC. The senate confirmed the nomination, the commission was signed by the president, and secretary of state John Marshall placed the US seal on the commission as required by law. Marshall did not have the commission hand delivered to Marbury (as required by law) by the morning of March 4, 1801, when President Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as president. The new secretary of state under President Jefferson, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission to Marbury. Marbury sued Madison in the Supreme Court asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver him the commission. Marbury relied upon section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as a basis of the Supreme courts jurisdiction. II. Issue Can the Supreme Court void an act of national legislation that it considers to be unconstitutional? III. Decision Yes IV. Rule The Supreme Court can void an act of national legislation that it considers to be unconstitutional V. Reasoning The Supreme Court is powerless to issue the writ of mandamus because sec 13 of the jud act of 1789 is unconstitutional. Article III of the Constitution provides that the SC shall have original jurisdiction only in the following two situations (i) in cases affecting ambassadors (ii) in cases in which a state is a party. According to Article III, in all other cases the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has the power to declare any act which is repugnant to the constitution to be void. This act, i.e., section 13 of the judiciary act of 1789, is repugnant to the constitution. Therefore this act is void. -Judicial Review: the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional. -Syllogism: a methodology of reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. Example: all professors at Baruch College are excellent professors. Professors Singer is a professor at Baruch College. Professor singer is an excellent professor. Terms to do with Scott v. Sandford Missouri Compromise: a federal law (passed in 1820) that allowed Missouri to enter the union as a slave state and Maine to enter the Union as a free state. This law also prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of the 36-30-latitude line. Federal Question Jurisdiction: jurisdiction that federal courts have when the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution or the laws of the US national government. Diversity Jurisdiction: jurisdiction that federal courts have when the opposing parties are from different states. Dicta: a remark made by a judge in a written opinion that does not form a necessary part of the court’s decision. Due Process: the government may not take away one’s life, liberty, or property without notice of a hearing and then a hearing. I. Facts Dr. Emerson, an army surgeon, took his slave Dred Scott from Missouri, a slave state, to Illinois, a freed state, as well as the northern part of the territory of Louisiana, an area in which, pursuant to the Missouri Compromise, slavery was illegal. Emerson subsequently brought Scott back with him to Missouri. Following the death of Emerson, his widow became the new owner of Scott. She then married an abolitionist (opposing slavery) and moved to New England. She transferred ownership to her brother, John Sandford from New York State, so that, after Scott sued Sandford for his freedom, diversity jurisdiction would apply and the case would be heard in a Missouri federal court rather than in a Missouri state court. Scott maintained in his lawsuit that his residence in a free state and a free territory conferred freedom upon him. II. Issue Can a slave sue? Did Congress have the power to make slavery illegal in the US territories pursuant to the Missouri Compromise? III. Decision No. IV. Rule Congress did not have the power to make slavery illegal in the US territories pursuant to the Missouri Compromise. V. Reasoning Slaves are property. The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause prohibits the government from depriving a person of his property without due process of law. The Missouri Compromise violates this constitutional clause by depriving a slave owner of his slaves, without due process of law, when the slave owner brings his slaves to a free territory. Therefore, the Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha () Bill: a proposed law being considered by Congress. Veto: the president’s refusal to sign a bill passed by Congress. Legislative Veto: congress passes a law delegating legislative powers to the executive branch, but the law allows either House of Congress to nullify executive branch action it doesn’t like. Bicameralism clause: a clause in the Constitution that establishes a two-house legislature consisting of a House of Representatives and a Senate. Presentment clause: a clause in the Constitution that says that in order for a bill to become a law it must be passed in identity form in both the House and Senate and then presented to the President for his signature or veto. Impeachment: when the House of Representatives votes that a federal official must stand trial in the Senate.
More Less

Related notes for POL 3313

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit