Con Law Basics
- Submitted by: collegeboi0089
- Views: 744
- Category: Politics
- Date Submitted: 09/29/2010 09:18 PM
- Pages: 3
- Report this Essay
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...
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...