Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office:...

19
Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu

Transcript of Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office:...

Page 1: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

Constitutional LawClass 2 January 9, 2008

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Spring 2008Professor FischerOffice: Room 412

202-319-5568fischerATlaw.edu

Page 2: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

The FACTS of Marbury v. Madison: William Marbury

Page 3: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

The FACTS: John Adams

Page 4: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

The FACTS: Thomas Jefferson

Page 5: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

The FACTS: John Marshall

Page 6: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

The FACTS: James Madison

Page 7: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

HOLDING

• What is the holding of Marbury v. Madison?

Page 8: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

HOLDING

• What is the holding of Marbury v. Madison? The Court ruled against Marbury and held that it could not issue mandamus to him. The Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to grant mandamus on its original jurisdiction. The Court held that the statute that gave it original jurisdiction was unconstitutional.

Page 9: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

REASONING: 4 QUESTIONS

• 1. Should the Court have reached the question of the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1789?

• 2. When may the Court review executive conduct?

• 3. Was the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional?

• 4. Should the judiciary have authority to declare statutes unconstitutional?

Page 10: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

REASONING: 4 QUESTIONS

1. Should the Court have reached the question of the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1789?

Page 11: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789

The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for . . . and shall have power to issue . . . writs of mandamus . . to any . . . . persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”

Page 12: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

REASONING: 4 QUESTIONS

• 2. When may the Court review executive conduct?

Page 13: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

REASONING: 4 QUESTIONS

• 3. Was the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional?

Page 14: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

Article III § 2

• In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

Page 15: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

REASONING: 4 QUESTIONS

• 4. Should the judiciary have authority to declare statutes unconstitutional?

Page 16: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

AUTHORITY

• John Marshall in Marbury stated: “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Page 17: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789

Gave the U.S. Supreme Court “power to issue . . . writs of mandamus . . to any . . . . persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”

Page 18: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

REVIEW OF STATE COURTS

• Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816)

• Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

Page 19: Constitutional Law Class 2 January 9, 2008 JUDICIAL REVIEW Spring 2008 Professor Fischer Office: Room 412 202-319-5568 fischerATlaw.edu.

THE ENDURING IMPORTANCE OF MARBURY

– The Constitution is regulatory. It is not aspirational like the Magna Carta or Declaration of Independence

– Congress can’t increase the jurisdiction of federal courts

– Court can review executive conduct to determine its constitutionality

– Court can review legislative actions for their constitutionality.

– Marbury arguably leaves open the question of which branch, if any, is the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution.