Con_Law_Basics

Muskrat v. United States Mootness and Ripeness Mootness: no longer relevant Sue for not getting into law school, end up getting in, case is Moot Ripeness: to hypothetical of an injury Padilla v Hanft Sosna v. Iowa Doe v. Bush Repugnant Law: The October Resolution Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Congress versus Presidential Power to declare war Case was dismissed because it was a political question. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno $280 million dollar tax brake, approved by the School Board City and State both agreed Charlotte Cuno and more filed sued “The Injury is to remote” On some level the case is not RIPE, and they haven’t been injured yet Has to be a nexus, closeness, of those involved Baker v. Carr 1901: Reapportion its two houses every ten years, yet it did not occur for 60 years. Litigated on the grounds of equal protection Not willing to invade the political process of the state legislature Nutshell Version Majority Power v Minority Freedom Theories of Judicial Review Justification for the Power What is the standard of Constitutionality Methodology I. Traditional Theory (Constitutional Absolutism) You do not need to have consistency between the practice of judicial review and the principles of democratic government -Constitution is a set of Rules -Rules in the Constitution are supreme -All others are inferior -When you have cases of conflict the lesser rule backs down -When you have a conflict the justice determines which rule is superior and which to apply -The standard for applying constitutionality is the constitution is not what the judges want it to be *Strict Constructionist Problems Framers intent is subjective Principles are subjective The needs of the people now are different from back then Language evolves over time II. Balancing Interests (Judicial Self restraint) Deference to the Legislature Duty bound to respect the will of the majority, so long it does not violate the Constitution A statute or Law is OK so long as it is considered reasonable Is it a rational response to situation it is addressing Treats each party equally, to reach some level of objectivity Positives Respects the will of the voters Can theoretically make truly objective decisions Courts should be removed from being pulled by Political Whim Congress vs Court: Congress will win Problems Doesn’t give democracy a fair shake Treats the court as undemocratic because they are not elected Where do the rights of the minority fall' III. Strict Scrutiny (Preferred freedom) Court is actively involved in judicial review The Court has a constitutional duty to carefully scrutinize a majority passed legislation that directly limits the exercise of those rights by which minorities could express political demands It’s a 3 part test 1) What does the law impact' Does it impact a preferred freedom (Bill of Rights)' Presumed to be unconstitutional 2) Exercising the right presents a clear and present danger or that the Law meets a compelling government interest 3) Very narrow end tailored, there is no other way to meet the government interest or protect from the clear and present danger. * Congress -> Enact legislation 4 Types of Powers -Enumerated/Implied -Amendment -Inherent -Treaty Enumerated/Implied -Article 1 Section 8