Muskrat v. United StatesMootness and RipenessMootness: no longer relevantSue for not getting into law school, end up getting in, case is MootRipeness: to hypothetical of an injuryPadilla v HanftSosna v.
IowaDoe v. BushRepugnant Law: The October ResolutionAuthorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)Congress versus Presidential Power to declare warCase was dismissed because it was a political question.DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno$280 million dollar tax brake, approved by the School BoardCity and State both agreedCharlotte Cuno and more filed sued???The Injury is to remote???On some level the case is not RIPE, and they haven??™t been injured yetHas to be a nexus, closeness, of those involvedBaker v.
Carr1901: Reapportion its two houses every ten years, yet it did not occur for 60 years.Litigated on the grounds of equal protectionNot willing to invade the political process of the state legislatureNutshell VersionMajority Power v Minority FreedomTheories of Judicial ReviewJustification for the PowerWhat is the standard of ConstitutionalityMethodologyI. 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 ProblemsFramers intent is subjectivePrinciples are subjectiveThe needs of the people now are different from back thenLanguage evolves over timeII. Balancing Interests (Judicial Self restraint)Deference to the LegislatureDuty 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 reasonableIs it a rational response to situation it is addressingTreats each party equally, to reach some level of objectivityPositivesRespects the will of the votersCan theoretically make truly objective decisionsCourts should be removed from being pulled by Political WhimCongress vs Court: Congress will winProblemsDoesn??™t give democracy a fair shakeTreats the court as undemocratic because they are not electedWhere do the rights of the minority fallIII. Strict Scrutiny (Preferred freedom)Court is actively involved in judicial reviewThe 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 demandsIt??™s a 3 part test1) What does the law impact Does it impact a preferred freedom (Bill of Rights) Presumed to be unconstitutional2) 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 legislation4 Types of Powers-Enumerated/Implied-Amendment-Inherent-TreatyEnumerated/Implied-Article 1 Section 8