Framers of Constitution concerned about Articles of ConfederationProblems - HN bad-- Tyranny of majority/ Need for checks/balances and - Fed.

. Too Weak-- K between SEPARATE states-- No power to separation of power/ NEED to create stronger nation while raise $$$, constantly borrowing from enemies of British -- No maintaining freedom way to tax/raise troops Constitution redefines freedom What is a nation? People w/ Common land/govt Fed. 51 Govt as reflection of Human nature - Freedom through representation COMPROMISE IS SO IMPORTANT IN US GOVT - Everyones voice heard Obligations of people under constitution? - Dont get whatever you want, compromise needed get what EVERYONE wants COURTS COURTS Power of courtsArt. IIIall Marbury v. Madison cases in law/equity under CON - Judicial review not in constitution - Appellate jurisdiction - Most undemocratic part of US govt9 judges decide constitutionality 9 people!! - Judicial review - Case said court cant force delivery of appointment --- this is exec. Power appoint, approval, then confirm is last step, pres. Can still change mind= discretionary power (court cannot force it) Martin v. Hunters Lessee art. III 2cl.2 SCOTUS app. Jur. Cohens v. Virginia 1821 preemption - U.S. has jurisdiction to review state courts decisions involving fed. - State laws in opposition of federal laws are void Law - SCOTUS can review state criminal proceedings - Need uniformity and court of last resort STANDING STANDING 3 Standing requirements Allen v. Wright 1) Personal injury in fact - Segregated school given tax breaks by IRS 2) Concrete/individuated - Parents- prevents our children from enjoyment of desegregated school system 3) Cause in fact - NO STANDING solely hypo injury and only those personally denied freedom can bring claim US v. SCRAP non-economic injury can satisfy standing Frothingham v. Mellon NO STANDING taxpayers interest in treasury $ Students had standing to challenge ICCs failure to do is shared w. millions, undeterminable envir-impact study before declining to suspend RR Friends of Earth v. Laidlaw- Standing okay where res. Concern that surcharge pollution damaged land Flast v. Cohen- exception for taxpayers must establish link SILBELIUS case 3rd party standing NO b/w status and leg. act logical nexus- parochial funds - people of NY dont generally have standing Valley Forge v. AU for Sep. Church/St. reaffirmed notions - Exception all standing req. plus 1- taxpayers challenge tax must tie to cong. Action, 2- P - Close personal relationship b/w P and 3rd party, AND party must identify personal injury due to const. error cant assert own right for some reason (injury, etc,) REGULATION OF JUDICIAL POWER REGULATION OF JUDICIAL POWER ArtIII2 court subject to Ex Parte v. McCardell Cong. Repeal ability of SCOTUS to hear writs of habeas exceptions/regulations cong. Makes corpus under 1867 act leading case on Cong limiting power of jud but very fact - Jurisdiction stripping 2 kinds specific change court that will hear case/ US v. Klein Cong. Tries to tell SCOTUS it has to rule in certain way under ____ isolate from jud. Rev. altogether circumstance- NO GOOD cannot take jud. Power away but telling them how to rule POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE- sometimes it is too politically messy for courts POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE Nixon v. US not justiciable- impeachment given to senate Baker v. Carr- redistricting case- previously held redist. was PQ BUT by const. they decide proper way to run it, not courts now its cover-up for racism- not getting equal representation Gilligan v. Morgan- students brought case- shooting at Kst. Goldwater v. Carr- not justiciable- dispute b/w congress and pres. not justiciable- militia is purely executive/legislative Cannot be reviewed before both have asserted const. authority LEGISLATIVE POWER federal leg. Must be based on powers granted to federal government in const (enumerated powers) Necessary + Proper Clause Maritime Jur art. III 2- judiciary BUT cong can reg/make adm. Ct. - Must attach to enumerated Power of congress DIVERSITY ERIE- rules of decision act- reg law applied by fed cts. Like I-congress powers/election reg. // ordain +establish Treaties cong can make treaties (w/pres.) advice/consent clause TAXING AND SPENDING POWER- Lay and collect taxes/duties/imposts/excises to pay for defense/general welfare 2 types of taxing Regulatory and Revenue Raising Bailey v. Drexel=child labor= NO GOOD congress tried to pass law, ct *** post-butler = expanded view of general welfare said no, then passed tax- cannot regulate- if rev. was main goal okay Regulation through spending US v. BUTLER Excise tax- Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis - Agriculture act cap on food production SS# act case- not coercive did not require state to surrender power - Ct said no coercive b/c if say no, lose benefits Unemp. Tax but deductible if put $ in state unemp. fund didnt prove BUT Butler affirmed cong. broad power to tax it was coercive court said South Dakota v. Dole -- **LANDMARK CASE** Congress may attach reasonable conditions to funds SD permits 19+ to buy alcohol- Cong. Withholds 5% of highway funding for given to states Condition must be unambiguous/ states below 21 okay bc under Gen. Welfare to discourage D+D promote gen. welfare/ related to federal interest uniformity amongst states needed for reg to be effective, states can refuse national programs/ no other con. prov apply

COMMERCE POWER economy national now so commerce clause covers more COMMERCE CLAUSE STANDARDS Channels/ Instrumentalities/ Sub. Effect Gibbons v. Ogden- NY gave exclusive rights to navigate b/w NY+NJ, Gib. C =rivers, etc./I=intra+inter conflict/ SE-not too navigated under act of Cong. CHANNELS of operation -- act of attentuated congress okay, congress can regulate Champion v. Ames- shipment carrying lotto tickets Shreveport case ISS fix RR rates from Shr. to Tex. OKAY Can Congress regulate? YES protect public morals can INSTRUMENTALITIES can prevent intra+inter from conflicting if it reg lotto tickets, prohibition part of reg specific to lotto tix will cause injury to interstate commerce Hammer v. Dagenhart OVERTURNED by DARBY US v. DARBY current theory post 1936 (hammer would go other way now) Cong exceeded power by prohibiting interstate Manufacturing NOT inter comm.. BUT SHIPMENT OF MAN. GOOD IS transportation of good made with child labor SO cong can regulate activities intra which have SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT Schecter Pooultry case act regulating NY poultry market NLRB v. Jones+Laughlin- SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT when looking at SE no good no direct effect cant be too indirect look at ACTUAL effects cant be too-attenuated (indirect/remotes) Wickard v. Filburn SE wheat allotments D goes over only Heart of ATL Motel v. US moral wrongdoings? Can cong use comm. for personal use Ct. says agg. could be bad if this allowed, clause to regulate? (Discrimination) yes, many people come from outso even though his conduct wasnt SE, agg. would be SE of-state, inhibits commerce, (was near or on interstate highway) US v. MORRISON (2000)- violence against women act Ollies BBQ goes hand in hand with ATL motel restaurant near UNCONSTITUTIONAL gender motivated crimes are not, in interstate highwaydiscriminationcan regulate b/c inhibits travel any sense of the phrase, economic activity. Invalidated act and ability of travelers to eat while on trips US v. LOPEZ law makes it fed crime to knowingly possess firearm in LOPEZ+MORRISON issue and market too far away school zone UNCONSTITUTIONAL exceeds comm.. power statute from one another connection present but too nothing to do w. comm., no link b/w gun in school zone and commerce attenuated to econ. Activity NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE-art. I 8- Cong has enum powers plus can make all law N+P to carry out enum powers McCulloch v. Maryland- power to incorporate bank? - YES> not enumerated but N+P bc has power to raise $$, needs ample means to do so - If end is legit under constitution, all appropriate means are const. OTHER CONGRESSIONAL POWERS/ Limits foreign affairs, state immunity from federal taxes/regulation CONGRESSIONAL Foreign affairs State immunity from federal taxes Miz. v. Holland if treaty valid, no dispute over validity of NY v. US federal excise tax on NY mineral water bottle okay statute as N+P to execute powers of govt - State owned and operated mineral water facility Reid v. Covert- treaty cannot grant extra power to branches Mass. v. US federal registration tax on civil aircraft okay State Const. supersedes treaties ratified by Senate owned heli, tax okay bc tax did not disc. Against state functions State immunity from Federal regulations Printz v. US Brady handgun bill Garcia v. SA MTA Fair Labor Standards Act- municipally Cong. can regulate individuals not states owned mass transit okay bc not taking away state sov. Fed. Govt CANNOT compel states to implement fed. reg. programs not regulating state as state, regulating all transit, not state Required state to do background check, etc for guns NO GOOD PRESIDENTIAL POWERS PRESIDENTIAL POWERS **YOUNGSTOWN** - take control of steel mills Yakus v. US OKAY congressional action affecting pres. Powers Tripartite analysispres w/, w/o, against congress President appointed admin. to set prices/rent controls for economy CANNOT take private property as C. in C. VALID bc Cong. laid out leg. Objective, prescribed method, laid out standards not LEGISLATIVE but QUASI-LEGISLATIVE Dames & Moore - Executive orders dissolving judgments US v. C-Wright -- Did the Joint Resolution passed by Congress grant too and suspending pending civil claims against Iranian much authority (and legislative power) to the President, in violation government were constitutional. International Emergency of the non-delegation doctrine? Presidents power is more broad w. Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)- given and quasi-leg so OK respect to foreign policy US v. MEAD if congress has no directly addressed, Presidential Power Questions ask 2 things to see validity agencys interpretation/execution valid unless arbitrary, 1) Is this a presidential power? (Under article III) OR capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute 2) Was there proper delegation? (Quasi, not full legislative) EXECUTIVE P/I 3 types of immunity military (diplomatic)/Withhold identity of accuser/internal deliberations (cong floor) US v. NIXON no person, not even pres, is completely above SPEECH/DEBATE CLAUSE article I 6 cl. I law; pres. cannot use exec. priv. as an excuse to withhold - Debate and speech in either house of cong. protected evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial. Clinton v. Jones- Clinton couldnt get dismissed until after presidency APPOINTMENT and REMOVAL of officers Myers v. US president can remove officers even when Humphrey;s Executor v. US cong can fix term and forbid removal appointment w/ advice+consent of Senate but for cause Bowsher v. Synar- cong cannot reserve termination for Morrison v. Olson- statute says only AG can fire special prosecutor for itself- that is exec. power, can impeach, only pres can fire cause take away pres. Power? NO its okay

POWER OF STATES supremacy clause art. IV cl. 2 Cooley v. Board of Wardensin area where uniformity not needed YET, State can act until congress exercises power

POWER OF STATES DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE---- same as commerce clause, just different justification -- kicks in when state does something which impacts interstate comm. STATES CAN ACT but cannot cross barriers that Baldwin v. GAF Seelig- NY milk prices regulation minimum milk commerce clause/ constitution written to create prices from producer-seller, prohibited sale of milk bought outside NY Cannot create trade barriers (never been case but obvious) for less INVALID unconst. Burden on Inter comm.. facially disc, West Lynn Creamery v. Healy- Mass. taxes all sales of milk to SCALIA 4 taxing devices (1) Discriminatory tax Mass. retailers, then gives $$ back to Mass. milk producers (2) non-disc tax w/ exemption or credit for in-state members --By giving $$ to producers in Mass, discriminatory in (3) non-disc. tax w/ revenue disbursed as subsidy effect, not facially discriminatory but effectually disc. (4) non-disc. w/ revenue put in general fund b4 disbursed 1-3 UNCONSTITUTIONAL 4- const. bc $$ subject to political process Pike v. Bruce Church AZ required cantaloupe growers to PHILLY v. NJ NJ act no waste from out of state pack it in AZ not facially discriminatory BUT P shows disc. INVALID facially discriminatory we can use dumps, but no1 else as required AZ tenuous interest does not justify requiring can could close dumps altogether, but if NJ can use, so can others construction of $200K plant and inhibiting packing market NJ cannot create trade barrier close borders from certain market Maine v. Taylor purpose not discriminatory OKAY C+A Carbone v. Clarkstown- Ctown, NY requires all waste collected in Purpose = welfare/safety of people baitfish- unique town to be processed at waste station w/in town P wants to go ecosystem substantial state interest in protecting ecosys. elsewhere for lesser fee drives up costs for disposal of wastes, and deprives out-of-state processors access to market United Trash Haulers Assoc. v. Oneida-Herkimer SWMA -- Major factual difference. Clarkstown-- facility was privately owned, Here-- owned by the state. Disposing of trash is a traditional govt activity, and the state has the right to legislate for the health safety and welfare of its citizens. Does not discriminate against out-of state versus in-state as everyone must use this facility. This court does not wish to regulate a government entity with the same respect it does a private entity. IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL STATE AS A MARKET PARTICIPANT distinguish between market participant and market regulator STATE-MKT Participant -- NO conditions can be imposed by state which have substantial regulatory effect outside that market Reeves Inc. v. Stake SD owned, operated cement plant South-Central Timber v. Wunnicke mkt participant exception State is in mkt. regulated by mkt. state not regulating doesnt allow K provision forcing purchasers to have timber cut NOT PROTECTIONIST other states/companies can open plants b4 leaving-- Forcing out-of-state buyer to use in-state cutters and sell to whoever they want (choosing not to sell out of state) may be more $$, restricting mkt. for cutting timber REVIEW IN DEPTH - Presidential power (YOUNGSTOWN) - COMMERCE CLAUSE - NEGATIVE COMMERCE CLAUSE Also review - For short essays o Issues like firing someone who has power, how can it be limited See special prosecutor case and other appointment/removal cases o Activist judges v. Conservative judges What is difference? How do they rule? (w/ respect to different issues)