United States constitutional law

From Encyclopedia Jr, free information reference for Kids

Constitutional Law of the United States of America

The constitutional structure
Civil Rights · Federalism
Executive branch · Separation of powers
Legislative branch · Judiciary
Famous Cases
Marbury v. Madison
McCulloch v. Maryland · Roe v. Wade
Dred Scott v. Sanford · Lochner v. New York
Freedoms
Free speech · Free exercise
Freedom of the press · Right to privacy
Theory
Constitutional theory · Judicial review

United States Constitutional Law is the body of law governing "the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution." It defines the scope and application of the terms of the Constitution and covers areas of law such as the relationship between the federal government and state governments, the rights of individuals, and other fundamental aspects of the application of government authority in the United States. ^[1] It is a field of law that is both complex and broad, in part because it is ambiguous in many aspects and often provides few clear answers. Some constitutional scholars maintain that the Constitution purposely remains vague and subject to interpretation so that it may be adapted to the circumstances of a changing society. Others, however, maintain that the provisions of the Constitution are "black letter law" and should be strictly construed and their provisions applied in a very literal manner. ^[2]

1 Interpreting the Constitution and the Authority of the Supreme Court
2 History
3 The Question of Federalism
4 Limiting the Power of The Three Branches - The System of "Checks and Balances"
5 The Due Process Clause (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)
6 The Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment)
7 The Privileges and Immunities Clauses (Article IV and Fourteenth Amendment)
- 7.1 Article IV
- 7.2 The Fourteenth Amendment
8 The Takings Clause
9 The Contracts Clause
10 The Ex Post Facto Clause
11 The Prohibition on Bills of Attainder
12 Freedom of Expression
13 Freedom of Religion
14 Federal Enforcement of Civil Rights
15 Sources
16 See also
17 External links

[edit] Interpreting the Constitution and the Authority of the Supreme Court

[edit] The Power of Judicial Review

Early in its history, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) and Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810), the Supreme Court of the United States declared that "the judicial power of the United States" granted to it by Article III of the United States Constitution included the power of judicial review, to consider challenges to the constitutionality of a State or Federal law. That is, the Court must consider, for example, whether a state law conformed to the Contract Clause (see, e.g., Dartmouth College v. Woodward), or (after the Fourteenth Amendment was added) whether a state had violated the Equal Protection Clause (see, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education), or whether Congress possessed the power under the Commerce Clause to pass a given law (see, e.g., United States v. Lopez. Having measured a law against the Constitution and, if finding it wanting, the Court was empowered and obligated to strike down that law.

[edit] Pros and Cons

However, opponents of judicial review have charged that the Court's power to invalidate federal and state laws or actions has no counterpart in common or civil law, and has no basis in the United States Constitution. The law of the United States derives in great part from the common law traditions the colonies inherited from Britain, which arguably has vested the power of judicial review in the people since 1215, when the Magna Carta was signed by King John Lackland. Whereas judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution, neither are the adversarial system, stare decisis, or virtually any other aspect of the common law. Therefore the argument is made that these concepts were necessarily implicit in what the Framers understood by the term "the judicial power," and therefore should govern the Constitution's interpretation. See Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Judicial Power. It is for these reasons that Article 39 opponents contend that the anglo-american tradition establishes the concept of the jury as the regulating body in legal matters, rather than the government itself. However this criticism of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence has never been articulated by any U.S. court and is disputed by the United States legal establishment for the following reasons.

While American constitutional law derives many of its forms and traditions from the common law, it is important to note that the constitutional order of the United States was very different to that of the United Kingdom. As Marbury observed, the Constitution's written nature and formal enumeration of the powers of government would be empty promises if there were no means to measure the actions of the government against the Constitution, and strike down those found wanting (see Marbury, supra, at 177) ("[c]ertainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void"). It is the predominant view in United States constitutional jurisprudence that, because Magna Carta is only the distant progenitor of the Due Process clauses, it is far from vesting judicial review in United States juries. In any event, and as a practical matter, the "final authority" regarding the United States Constitution is not the Supreme Court but the political will of the people, acting through the powers granted them by way of the Article V amendment powers (i.e., amendments are either proposed by Congress or by way of constitutional convention mandated by the state legislatures).

[edit] Scope and Effect

The Supreme Court's interpretations of Constitutional law are binding on the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, on the lower courts in the federal system and on all state courts. This system of binding interpretations or precedents evolved from the common law system (called "stare decisis"), where precedent binds lower courts. However, neither English common law courts or continental civil law courts generally have the power to declare legislation illegal or unconstitutional but only the power to interpret the law itself.

[edit] Prudential Limits - the Principles of Justiciability

There are a number of related doctrines that, once raised by a party, the Supreme Court will examine before deciding on a constitutional question. Perhaps the most important of these is whether the court can avoid the constitutional question by basing its decision on a nonconstitutional reason. For example, if a federal statute is on shaky constitutional footing but applied to the challenging party in a manner that does not implicate the basis for the constitutional claim, the Supreme Court will not decide whether the statute might be unconstitutional if it were applied differently. Or, when reviewing a decision of a state's highest court, the Court may avoid constitutional decision making if the state court's decision is based on an independent and adequate state law grounds. That is, even if the state court decided the question of federal constitutional law incorrectly, the Supreme Court will not review that decision for its correctness, if the state decision is based on other, separate state grounds.

There are also many related doctrines that federal courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular will consider before allowing a lawsuit to go forward. These implicate whether there is a case and controversy before the court and include proper standing of the parties, whether the case raises abstract, hypothetical or conjectural questions, whether the case is ripe for decision, or moot and thus past decision, or whether the question presented is a political question, unreviewable by the Court because the Constitution relegates it to another branch of government. In line with the aforementioned principles, the Court will also avoid the issuance of advisory opinions where there is no actual case or controversy before them. These doctrines, because they apply to all federal cases whether of constitutional dimension or not, are discussed separately in the article on federal jurisdiction.

[edit] Suits Against States: Effect of the 11th Amendment

[edit] Philosophical Underpinnings

Furthermore, there are a number of ways that commentators and Justices of the Supreme Court have defined the Court's role, and its jurisprudential method. For example, current Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are originalists; originalism is a family of similar theories that hold that the Constitution has a fixed meaning from an authority contemporaneous with the ratification (although opinion as to what that authority is varies; see discussion at originalism), and that it should be construed in light of that authority. Unless there is a historic and/or extremely pressing reason to interpret the Constitution differently, originalists vote as they think the Constitution as it was written in the late 18th Century would dictate. Other approaches are possible, though. Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter was a leading proponent of so-called judicial restraint, in that he believed that the Supreme Court should not make law (which, by invalidating or significantly altering the meaning of Congressional bills, Frankfurter felt they were), and so believers in this idea often vote not to grant cases the writ of certiorari. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer generally advocates a quasi-purposivist approach, focusing on what the law was supposed to achieve rather than what it actually says, and measuring the possible outcomes of voting one way or another. Other Justices have taken a more instrumentalist approach (see judicial activism), believing it is the role of the Supreme Court to reflect societal changes. They often see the Constitution as a living, changing and adaptable document; thus their ruling will be in stark contrast to originalists. Compare, for example, the differing opinions of Justices Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is a more instrumentalist justice. Finally, there are some Justices who do not have a clear judicial philosophy, and so decide cases purely on each one's individual merits. Debate continues over which, if any, of these interpretive strategies is "better". Complicating the analysis is the lack of direct correspondance between the various interpretive strategies and contemporary notions of "conservatism" or "liberalism". For example, originalism is often associated with conservatism, but Justice Scalia's opinions in 2004 about the detention of persons at Guantanamo Bay were probably the most libertarian, because he did not believe that the framers of the Constitution had granted Executive powers for the purpose of preventing judicial and legislative notice.

[edit] History

[edit] The Founding

[edit] From the Founding to the Civil War

[edit] Reconstruction

[edit] From Reconstruction to the New Deal

[edit] From the New Deal to the Roberts Court

[edit] The Question of Federalism

[edit] Powers Granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government

[edit] The Federal Commerce Power

[edit] The Taxing Power

[edit] The Spending Power

[edit] The War, Treaty, and Foreign Affairs Powers

[edit] Other Federal Powers

Other federal powers specifically enumerated by Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution (and generally considered exclusive to the federal government) are:

to coin money, and to regulate its value;

to establish laws governing bankruptcy;

to establish post offices (although Congress may allow for the establishment of non-governmental mail services by private entities);

to control the issuance of copyrights and patents (although copyrights and patents may also be enforced in state courts);

to govern the District of Columbia and all other federal properties;

to control naturalization (and, implicitly, the immigration) of aliens;

to enforce "by appropriate legislation" the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (a function of the Constitution's Necessary and Proper clause);

to propose, by a two-thirds vote, constitutional amendments for ratification by three-fourths of the states pursuant to the terms of Article V.

[edit] Powers Reserved by the States

Although, for all practical purposes (as proved by the fact of the U.S. Civil War), the federal government does not actually govern by the "consent of the states," some of the more important powers reserved by the states to themselves in the Constitution are:

the power, by "application of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states," to require Congress to convene a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to or revising the terms of the Constitution (see Article V).

[edit] Intergovernmental Immunities and Interstate Relations

The United States government, its agencies and instrumentalities, are immune from state regulation that interferes with federal activities, functions, and programs. State laws and regulations cannot substantially interfere with an authorized federal program, except for minor or indirect regulation, such as state taxation of federal employees.

[edit] Limiting the Power of The Three Branches - The System of "Checks and Balances"

[edit] Boundaries of Power: Congress v. the Executive

[edit] Lawmaking Authority

[edit] The Presidential Veto Power

[edit] Foreign Affairs and War Powers

[edit] Appointment and Removal of Executive Personnel

[edit] The Special Prosecutor

[edit] The Judicial Branch

[edit] Legislative and Executive Immunity

[edit] The Due Process Clause (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)

[edit] The Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment)

[edit] The Privileges and Immunities Clauses (Article IV and Fourteenth Amendment)

[edit] Article IV

[edit] The Fourteenth Amendment

[edit] The Takings Clause

[edit] The Contracts Clause

[edit] The Ex Post Facto Clause

[edit] The Prohibition on Bills of Attainder

[edit] Freedom of Expression

[edit] Freedom of Religion

[edit] Federal Enforcement of Civil Rights

[edit] Sources

[edit] See also

United States Constitution
United States Supreme Court
Lists of United States Supreme Court cases:
- From the Jay Court through the Taft Court
- From the Hughes Court through the Burger Court
- From the Rehnquist Court through the Roberts Court

[edit] External links

Law of the United States
Constitutional law	Federalism, Separation of powers, Civil rights, Legislative branch
Courts	Federal Courts: Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, District Court, Bankruptcy Court, Claims Court, Tax Court State Courts: State supreme courts
Education	Law school, Law School Admission Test, Admission to the bar

Categories: Articles to be expanded | United States constitutional case law