congress and courts

8/3/2019 Congress and Courts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/congress-and-courts 1/14

Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry

[email protected] www.chounlam.pbworks.com

We The PeopleWe The People77thth ed.ed.Thomas E. PattersonThomas E. Patterson

Adapted by Som Chounlamountry, MAAdapted by Som Chounlamountry, MA

forfor ITV Political Science 1ITV Political Science 1

CONGRESSCONGRESS

PowerPoint By Diane Feibel, Ed.D.PowerPoint By Diane Feibel, Ed.D.Chapter 11Chapter 11

THE CONGRESS: BalancingTHE CONGRESS: BalancingNational & Local InterestsNational & Local Interests

CONGRESS KEY POINTSCONGRESS KEY POINTS

Congress is responsible for making laws,creating the budget, and oversight.

Most of the work is done in committees

Confirmation of Appointments

Impeachment of President—HOUSE

Removal of President—SENATE

Major Issues: Iraq, The Financial Crisis,

Healthcare Reform

RECALL: CHECKS AND BALANCESRECALL: CHECKS AND BALANCES

RECALL: ARTICLE 1; Section 8RECALL: ARTICLE 1; Section 8DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIESDUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES

YOU MUST KNOW

THIS!DUTIES ANDRESPONSIBILITY OFCONGRESS

ARTICLE 1; Section 8ARTICLE 1; Section 8

[1] The Congress shall have power to lay andcollect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to paythe debts and provide for the common defenseand general welfare of the United States; but allduties, imposts and excises shall be uniform

throughout the United States; [2] To borrow money on the credit of the United

States;

[3] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, andamong the several States, and with the Indiantribes;

[4] To establish an uniform rule of naturalization,and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptciesthroughout the United States;



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry



[5] To coin money, regulate the valuethereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the

standard of weights and measures; [6] To provide for the punishment of

counterfeiting the securities and currentcoin of the United States;

[7] To establish post offices and postroads;

[8] To promote the progress of science anduseful arts by securing for limited times toauthors and inventors the exclusive rightto their respective writings anddiscoveries;


[9] To constitute tribunals inferior to the SupremeCourt;

[10] To define and punish piracies and feloniescommitted on the high seas and offenses againstthe law of nations;

[11] To declare war, grant letters of marque andreprisal, and make rules concerning captures onland and water;

[12] To raise and support armies, but noappropriation of money to that use shall be for alonger term than two years;

[13] To provide and maintain a navy;

[14] To make rules for the government andregulation of the land and naval forces;

ARTICLE 1; Section 8ARTICLE 1; Section 8 [15] To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the

laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repelinvasions;

[16] To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining themilitia, and for governing such part of them as may beemployed in the service of the United States, reserving tothe States respectively the appointment of the officers, andthe authority of training the militia according to thediscipline prescribed by Congress;

[17] To exercise exclusive legislation in all caseswhatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten milessquare) as may, by cession of particular States and theacceptance of Congress, become the seat of theGovernment of the United States, and to exercise likeauthority over all places purchased by the consent of thelegislature of the State in which the same shall be, for theerection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, andother needful buildings;

ARTICLE 1; Section 8.ARTICLE 1; Section 8.THE “ELASTIC” CLAUSETHE “ELASTIC” CLAUSE

[18] To make all laws which shall benecessary and proper for carrying intoexecution the foregoing powers, andall other powers vested by thisConstitution in the Government of theUnited States, or in any department orofficer thereof.

LEADERSHIP & COMMITTEESLEADERSHIP & COMMITTEES

THE MAJORITY PARTY CONTROLSTHE AGENDA IN EACH CHAMBER

THE MAJORITY PARTY CONTROLSTHE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THECOMMITTEES

COMMITTEES REFLECT THECOMPOSITE OF THE CHAMBERS

MOST OF THE WORK OF CONGRESS ISDONE IN AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL

2008 ELECTION



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry


http://onehttp://one--simplesimple--idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htmidea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm

CONGRESS RECONGRESS RE--ELECTION RATEELECTION RATE

http://onehttp://one--simplesimple--idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htmidea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm

CONGRESS APPROVAL RATINGCONGRESS APPROVAL RATING

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/#rcphttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/#rcp--avgavg--904904

Congress as a Career: ElectionCongress as a Career: Electionto Congressto Congress

Using Incumbencyto Stay in Congress

Constituency

Pork Barrel Projects Service Strategy

Open-Seat Election

Chart: ReelectionRates, 2002 50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

House Senate

11-2

THE US SENATETHE US SENATE

SENATE LEADER

HARRY REID NEEDS

60 DEMOCRATS TO

HAVE A FILIBUSTER-

PROOF MAJORITY



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry


HARRY REID, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER

The Nevada Democrat - described as a toughplayer - has stressed the need for bi-partisanco-operation.

"We're going to lead an open government. Andwe're going to deliver results. From Iraq to theeconomy, Americans want change," Mr Reidhas said.

He has said that his party will work withRepublicans to "bring oversight andaccountability'' to the war and is has also saidhe will consider supporting a short-termincrease in US troops in Iraq.

JOE BIDEN, CHAIRMAN, SENATE FOREIGNRELATIONS COMMITTEE

Although Mr Biden voted in support of invading Iraq,he has since become critical of US conduct of the war,calling for a change of course. His plan involves

splitting Iraq into autonomous regions and withdrawingUS forces.

He has also said he wants to focus on North Korea,Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mr Biden, from Delaware, has been a Democraticpresidential candidate in the past and still harboursambitions for the White House.

CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN, SENATE ARMEDSERVICES COMMITTEE

Carl Levin voted against invading Iraq in 2002

Mr Levin is one of the Democratic opponents of theIraq war who voted against the invasion in 2002.

He favours a change of course and beginning areduction in US troop numbers there by the end of theyear. He has promised to make Iraq and the conflict inAfghanistan his committee's top priorities.

Mr Levin is considered likely to hold hearings into theconduct of the war in Iraq.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Democrat Nancy Pelosi

House Speaker

HOUSE SPEAKER

PELOSI

NANCY PELOSI, HOUSE SPEAKER

The representative from San Francisco will become the firstfemale speaker of the House, which makes her second inline after the vice-president to succeed the president, if itbecomes necessary.

Profile of Nancy Pelosi Ms Pelosi has promised to workwith President George W Bush and the Republicanswherever possible. But she has said she expects Mr Bush tomake a change of direction in Iraq.

She has also said House Democrats will push ahead withthe rest of their agenda, including funding embryonic stemcell research, imposing a national cap on carbon dioxideemissions and cutting interest rates on student loans.

She has played down talk of attempting to impeach Mr Bushover the war in Iraq.

CHARLES RANGEL, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE WAYSAND MEANS COMMITTEE

wants to end tax cuts for wealthy Americans

Mr Rangel is expected to close tax breaks thatencourage US companies to move jobs overseas.

He has said he wants to work with Republicans to

show that "expanded trade doesn't always have tomean the loss of good-paying jobs".

Mr Rangel is expected to push for more emphasis onenvironmental and labour issues in trade agreements.

He wants to simplify the tax code to eventually repealBush administration tax cuts for the very wealthy.



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry


The Struggle for EqualityThe Struggle for Equality

Women

Women’s Legal andPolitical Gains

Gender gap

Job-Related Issues:Family Leave,Comparable Worthand SexualHarassment

Chart: Percent oflegislative seats heldby women

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%40%

45%

Sweden G ermany

U.S. Japan

5-3

Men and Women in the 110thMen and Women in the 110thCongressCongress

While the partisan composition of the Congress

is fairly close to that of the electorate, there arelarger disparities between the Congress andthe general citizenry in term of sex and race. Inthe House, there are currently 365 men and 70women. In the Senate, there are 16 womenand 84 men. Currently, whites comprise % ofthe membership of the House and 94% of themembership of the Senate. The racialcomposition of the House is summarized in thetable below.

Racial CompositionRacial Composition----110110thth CongressCongress

U.S. House U.S. Senate

White 364 94

Black 40 1

Hispanic 23 3

Asian 5 2

LAW MAKINGLAW MAKING

How a Bill Becomes Law

Filibuster

Definition

History

Senate Leadership

House Leadership

Iraq War Funding

I’M JUST A BILLI’M JUST A BILLhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGxhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGx--EHvZIgcEHvZIgc



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry


How A Bill Becomes LawHow A Bill Becomes Law Committee Hearings and Decisions

From Committee to the Floor

House Rules Committee

Determines how the bill wil l be debated

SENATE ONLY

Filibuster (Unlimited debate)

Cloture (60 Senators can limit debate to 30 hours)

Rider (Senate Only)

Leadership and Floor Action

Conference Committee and the President

Law

Veto

11-7

FILIBUSTERFILIBUSTER SENATE ONLYSENATE ONLY

http://congress.indiana.edu/media/video/f

acts_of_congress/filibuster.mov

'I'm not filibustering. I'm teaching.''I'm not filibustering. I'm teaching.' BUDGETBUDGET“THE POWER OF THE PURSE”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGx-EHvZIgc

http://corporate.cq.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=221

OVERSIGHTOVERSIGHT

Why Does Congress Need to Do Oversight? Ensure executive compliance with legislative intent. Improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of

governmental operations.

Evaluate program performance. Prevent executive encroachment on legislative prerogatives

and powers. Investigate alleged instances of poor administration, arbitrary

and capricious behavior, abuse, waste, dishonesty, and fraud. Assess an agency or official's ability to manage and carry out

program objectives. Review and determine federal financial priorities. Ensure that executive policies reflect the public interest. Protect individual rights and liberties. Review agency rule-making process es. Acquire information useful in future policymaking. http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/comm_gp_cong_oversig

ht.htm

Review, monitoring, andReview, monitoring, and

supervision of federal agencies,supervision of federal agencies,

programs and policyprograms and policy

implementationimplementation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx5r0JmhDvY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsrv3Na8dW8

CONFIRMATIONSCONFIRMATIONS

Confirmation Hearing for Dr. Condoleezza Rice

John G. Roberts Jr. at his Senate

confirmation hearing in 2005.



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry


IMPEACHMENTIMPEACHMENT— —HOUSEHOUSEPRESIDENT CLINTONPRESIDENT CLINTON

NPR News Special Coverage of the ImpeachmentInquiry of President Bill Clinton

Clinton Says He's "Profoundly Sorry"

Copyright © 1998 Reuters Limited Live Coverage

Join NPR on-the-air and online for live coverage whenthe full House debates the impeachment of Bi ll Clinton.Read the articles of impeachment.

Archived CoverageSaturday, December 12, 1998Listen as Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., discusses thehearings with NPR's Neal Conan and Nina Totenberg.Listento NPR analysis prior to Saturday's debate.Listento the morning debate.Listento NPR's Neal Conan, Nina Totenberg and DanielSchorr.Listento the debate and vote on the fourth ar ticle ofimpeachment.Listento the debate and vote on censure.Listenas the committee wraps up their discussion.Check out our online report.

On Article 1, the charge of

perjury, 55 senators,

including 10 Republicans

and all 45 Democrats voted

not guilty. On Article 3,

obstruction of justice, the

Senate split evenly, 50 for

and 50 against the

President.

http://www.historyplace.co

m/unitedstates/impeachmen

ts/clinton.htm

PRESIDENT NIXONPRESIDENT NIXON& WATERGATE SCANDAL& WATERGATE SCANDAL

On Saturday, July 27, 1973, the House

Judiciary Committee approved its first

article of impeachment charging PresidentNixon with obstruction of justice. Six of

the Committee's 17 Republicans joined

all 21 Democrats in voting for the article.

The following Monday the Committee

approved its second article charging

Nixon with abuse of power. The next day,

the third and final article, contempt of

Congress, was approved.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/

impeachments/nixon.htm

On Friday, August 9, Nixon

resigned the presidency and

avoided the l ikely prospect

of losing the impeachment

vote in the full House and a

subsequent trial in the

Senate.

TRIAL & REMOVALTRIAL & REMOVAL— —2/32/3rdrd

SENATESENATE On March 16, 1868 a crucial vote occurred onArticle 11 concerning Johnson's overallbehavior toward Congress. A straw pollindicated the Senate was one vote shy of thenecessary two thirds (36 votes out of a total of54 Senators) needed for conviction.Johnson's fate rested upon the singleundecided vote of a young RadicalRepublican named Edmund G. Ross.

Despite monumental pressure from fellowRadicals and dire warnings that a vote foracquittal would end his political career, Rossstood up at the appropriate moment andquietly announced "not guilty," effectively

ending the impeachment trial.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/johnson.htm

President Andrew Johnsonwas 1 vote away!

YOUR CONGRESS ATYOUR CONGRESS ATWORKWORK

ISSUE: IRAQISSUE: IRAQ

SITUATION: IRAQSITUATION: IRAQ

Mr. Som Chounlamountry, MAMr. Som Chounlamountry, MA

THE AMERICAN PEOPLETHE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Approve Disapprove Unsu re

% % %

ALL adults 24 71 5

Republicans 58 34 8

Democrats 5 93 2

Independents 19 74 7

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W."Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W.

Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry


IRAQ POLICYIRAQ POLICY OPTIONS UNDER G.W. BUSHOPTIONS UNDER G.W. BUSHADMINISTRATIONADMINISTRATION

OPTION #1: Immediate U.S. Withdrawal

OPTION #2: Increasing troops

OPTION #3: Use of diplomacy

Baghdad: Mapping the violenceBaghdad: Mapping the violence

Baghdad:

Mapping theviolence

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in _depth/baghdad_navigator/

BARACK & IRAQBARACK & IRAQ— —Stay TunedStay Tuned


ISSUE: THE FINANCIAL CRISISISSUE: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

US CONGRESS &US CONGRESS &GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISISGLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS FINANCIAL CRISIS EXPLAINEDFINANCIAL CRISIS EXPLAINED

ON OPRAH SHOWON OPRAH SHOWhttp://www.oprah.com/media/20081003_tows_alihttp://www.oprah.com/media/20081003_tows_ali



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry


BANKS

AFFECTED

BY THE

GLOBAL

CRISIS -

2008

http://news.bbc

.co.uk/2/hi/bus

iness/7644238.

stm

CONGRESS APPROVED THECONGRESS APPROVED THE$700B BAILOUT$700B BAILOUT


ISSUE:ISSUE: HEALTHCARE REFORMHEALTHCARE REFORM

HEALTHCARE REFORMHEALTHCARE REFORMhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/healthhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/health--carecare--reform/ reform/

What it Means to You

How the health-care packagepassed by the House will af fectyour coverage.

How the House voted

How House members voted onthe final package.

Sort the votes

How the Senate voted.

Sphere of Influence

A breakdown of 41 health carelobbyists connected to theFinance Committee.

What's in the bill

Ways different people andbusinesses would be impacted.

We The PeopleWe The People77thth ed.ed.Thomas E. PattersonThomas E. Patterson

Adapted by Som Chounlamountry, MAAdapted by Som Chounlamountry, MA

for ITV Political Science 1for ITV Political Science 1

THE COURTSTHE COURTS

PowerPoint By Diane Feibel, Ed.D.PowerPoint By Diane Feibel, Ed.D.Chapter 14Chapter 14

The Federal JudicialThe Federal JudicialSystem: Applying the LawSystem: Applying the Law



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry


RECALL: CHECKS AND BALANCESRECALL: CHECKS AND BALANCES US SUPREMEUS SUPREME COURT JUSTICESCOURT JUSTICES

Chief Justice:

John G. Roberts, Jr. Associate Justices:

John Paul Stevens

AntoninScalia

Anthony M. Kennedy

Clarence Thomas

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Stephen G. Breyer

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Sonia Sotomayor

The Federal Judicial SystemThe Federal Judicial System

The Federal Judicial SystemThe Federal Judicial System

Other Federal Courts U.S. District Courts (90) Judges

appointed by Pres. With consent of

Senate U.S. Courts of Appeals (no juries; 12

circuits)

Special U.S. Courts

The State Courts Elective Offices (most states)

Merit Plan (governor select from short listby the judicial selection commission)

14-4

United States Courts of AppealsUnited States Courts of Appeals

The 94 U.S. judicial districts are organized into 12regional circuits, each of which has a United Statescourt of appeals. A court of appeals hears appealsfrom the district courts located within its circuit, aswell as appeals from decisions of federaladministrative agencies.

In addition, the Court of Appeals for the FederalCircuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appealsin specialized cases, such as those involvingpatent laws and cases decided by the Court ofInternational Trade and the Court of FederalClaims.



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry


Federal Court AppointeesFederal Court Appointees

The Selection of Supreme Court Justicesand Federal Judges Supreme Court Nominees (20% rejected)

Lower-Court Nominees (attorney generalscreening)Senatorial Courtesy (The senator has a say if the

senator is in the same party as the pres.)

Justices and Judges as Political Officials The Role of Partisanship

Other Characteristics of Judicial Appointees

14-5

The Nature of Judicial DecisionThe Nature of Judicial DecisionMakingMaking

The Constraints of the Facts

The Constraints of the Laws

The Constitution and Its Interpretation

Statutes, Administrative Laws, and TheirInterpretation (criminal, civil legislation)

Legal Precedents (Previous Rulings) andTheir Interpretation (precedents and thephilosophy of stare decisis – ‘to stand bythings that have been settled’

14-6

Judicial ReviewJudicial Review

Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137(1803) is a landmark case in United States lawwherein the U.S. Supreme Court established

judicial review as a legitimate power of theCourt on constitutional grounds. The Courtruled that it had the power to declare a statutevoid that it considered repugnant to theConstitution. Chief Justice John Marshall, inMarbury , legally established the judiciary—andin particular, the Supreme Court—as an equalpartner among the three branches of theAmerican federal government.

Relevant lawRelevant law U.S. Const. art. III, § 2

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other publicMinisters and Consuls, and those in which a Stateshall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have originalJurisdiction. In all the other Cases [within the judicialpower of the United States], the supreme Court shallhave appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations asthe Congress shall make."

Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13

"The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jursidiction from the circuit courts and courts of theseveral states, in the cases herein after provided for;and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition tothe district courts...and writs of mandamus...to any

courts appointed, or persons holding office, under theauthority of the United States."

In the Presidential election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeatedJohn Adams, becoming the third U.S. President. Although theelection was decided on February 17, 1801, Jefferson did not takeoffice until March 4, 1801. Until that time, Adams and theFederalist-controlledU.S. Congress were still in power. Congress

passed a new Judiciary Act, creating a number of new courts tobe controlled by Federalists.

On March 2, Adams appointed 42 Federalists to these courtswhile sitting as a lame duck less than a week before the end of histerm. The following day, on March 3, the judges were approved bythe Senate. One of these "Midnight Judges" was William Marbury,appointed to a position as Justice of the Peace in the District ofColumbia. At noon, Adams left office and Jefferson wasinaugurated as President.

The issueThe issue There are two ways the Supreme Court can hear a case: (1) filing directly in

the Supreme Court; or (2) filing in some lower court, such as a district court,and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court. The first is an exerciseof the Court's original jurisdiction; the second is appellate jurisdiction.

Because Marbury filed his petition for the writ of mandamus directly in theSupreme Court, the Court needed to be able to exercise original jurisdictionover the case in order to have the power to hear it. However, theConstitution specifically enumerates in Art. III what types of cases theSupreme Court can hear under its original jurisdiction. The problem is that

most legal scholars agree that Marbury's case doesn't fit under any of thosetypes of cases. Marbury's argument is that in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress granted

the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus.This raises several issues that Marshall has to address:

Does Art. III of the Constitution create a "floor" for original jurisdiction, thatCongress can add to, or does it create an exhaustive list that Congress can'tmodify at all?

If Art. III's original jurisdiction is an exhaustive l ist, but Congress tries tomodify it anyway, who wins that conflict, Congress or the Constitution? And,more importantly, who is supposed to decide who wins? In his answer to thislast question, Marshall creates the notion of judicial review.



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry


In analyzing the third question, Marshall first examines theJudiciary Act and determines that the Act purports to givethe Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs ofmandamus. Marshall then looks to Art. III of theConstitution, which defines the Supreme Court's originaland appellate jurisdictions (see Relevant Law above).Legal Scholars generally agree that Art. III enumeratescertain cases over which the Supreme Court may exerciseoriginal jurisdiction, and Marbury's case does not fit underany of them. Marbury argues, however, that theConstitution was only intended to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to. Marshall disagreesand holds that Congress does not have the power tomodify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.Consequently, Marshall finds that the Constitution and theJudiciary Act conflict.

This conflict raises the important question of what happenswhen an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution.Marshall answers that Acts of Congress that conflict with theConstitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead tofollow the Constitution, creating the principle of judicial review.In support of this position Marshall looks to the nature of thewritten Constitution--there would be no point of having a writtenConstitution if the government could just ignore it. "To whatpurpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is thatlimitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time,be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Marshall alsoargues that the very nature of the judicial function requires theCourts to make this determination. Since it is the Court's duty todecide cases, the Courts have to be able to decide what lawapplies to each case. Therefore, if two laws conflict with eachother, the Court must decide which law applies. Finally,Marshall points to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold theConstitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution,which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the UnitedStates."

Opinion’s BrilliancesOpinion’s Brilliances The opinion's brilliance lies in the way it

simultaneously asserted the Court's power to holdacts of Congress unconstitutional and yet avoided adirect confrontation with the President. By giving upthe power of original jurisdiction in cases notspecifically enumerated in the Constitution, it seizedthe power of judicial review. Politically, Jefferson wasforced into a corner: either agree with the ruling anduse it as a justification to continue denying theMidnight Judges their commissions, or disagree withthe very ruling that legitimized his action. However,there is some debate about whether Marshall wasactually trying to avoid direct conflict with the

President.

The decisionThe decision

The decision was rendered on February 24, 1803, in aunanimous 4-0 decision.3 Chief Justice Marshall wrotethe opinion of the court. Marshall presents the case asraising three distinct questions:

Did Marbury have a right to the appointment?

Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legalremedy?

Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamusthe correct legal remedy? Marshall quickly answers the first two questions

affirmatively. Marshall finds that the failure to deliver the

commission was "violative of a vested legal right."

Political Influences on JudicialPolitical Influences on JudicialDecisionsDecisions

Outside Influences on Court DecisionsBrown 1954 – “With all deliberate speed”

Court tailored its ruling to gain popular

support or dampen public resistence Strict Constructionism: apply a narrow

interpretation of the law

Loose Constructionism: apply anexpansive interpretation of the law

Inside Influences: The Justices’ OwnPolitical Beliefs

14-7

Judicial Power and DemocraticJudicial Power and DemocraticGovernmentGovernment

The Debate over the Proper Role of theJudiciary

The Doctrine of Judicial Restraint – respectful to

precedent and should defer the judgment of the legislatures Compliance

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

The Doctrine of Judicial Activism – courts shoulddevelop new legal principles,even if this action placesthem in conflict with policy decision of elected officials.

The Judiciary’s Proper Role: A Question ofCompeting Values

14-8



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry


Judicial reviewJudicial review The power of the federal courts to overturn or limit

the enforcement of Federal or state laws or

regulations that the judges determine have violatedthe Federal constitution. The term also covers thepower of the Federal courts to overturn or limit theenforcement of state laws or regulations that the

judges determine are in direct conflict with Federallaws or regulations regarding a specific subjectmatter where the Federal constitution gives primary

jurisdiction to the Federal government. Also thepower of state courts to overturn or limit theenforcement of state laws or regulations that the

judges determine have violated either the Federalconstitution or the constitution of their own state.

Judicial activismJudicial activism The view that the Supreme Court justices (and even other

lower-ranking judges as well) can and should creatively(re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws inorder to serve the judges' own considered estimates of thevital needs of contemporary society when the elected"political" branches of the Federal government and/or thevarious state governments seem to them to be failing tomeet these needs. On such a view, judges should nothesitate to go beyond their traditional role as interpreters ofthe Constitution and laws given to them by others in orderto assume a role as independent policy makers orindependent "trustees" on behalf of society.

Judicial restraintJudicial restraint The view that the Supreme Court (and other lesser

courts) should not read the judges' own philosophiesor policy preferences into the constitution and lawsand should whenever reasonably possible construethe law so as to avoid second guessing the policydecisions made by other governmental institutionssuch as Congress, the President and stategovernments within their constitutional spheres ofauthority. On such a view, judges have no popularmandate to act as policy makers and should defer tothe decisions of the elected "political" branches of theFederal government and of the states in matters ofpolicy making so long as these policymakers stay

within the limits of their powers as defined by the USConstitution and the constitutions of the severalstates.

Supreme Court JusticesSupreme Court Justices

Frequently-Asked-Questions Why is it so widely expected that President Bush will

nominate one or more justices to the High Court? This isone of the longest periods of stability, without a vacancyon the Court, in history. It has been nearly 8 years sincethe a justice stepped down - it has been 180 years sincethe court has gone this long with a new member.

The speculation also arises from the number of justicesnear what is generally thought of as retirement age:Justice John Paul Stevens (80). Justices Ginsburg andStevens have battled cancer. The more cynical politicalanalysis posits that several of the Justices who wereappointed by Republican presidents have awaited thereturn of the White House to G.O.P. hands before

thinking of offering resignations.

Supreme Court JusticesSupreme Court Justices What is the process for making a Supreme Court nomination?

Unlike federal district court judgeships, where proposed nomineesoften traditionally originate from members of Congress, thenomination of a Supreme Court Justice is very much driven by thePresident and senior White House staff, with input and legwork fromthe Department of Justice. Starting from a "short list" of desirable orplausible candidates, staff analyze past judicial decisions, writings,speeches, employment history, and other information to develop aprofile of a candidate and to identify any potential obstacles to theirsuccessful confirmation.

What is the role of the Senate? Under Article II, section 2, clause 2of the Constitution, the role of the Senate is to provide its advice andconsent to a nomination. Key Senators, particularly those on theSenate Judiciary Committee, typically are consulted in advance bythe White House about the merits of potential nominees. After anomination is made, it is assigned to the Judiciary Committee. TheCommittee holds a public hearing and a subsequent vote is taken toreport the nomination to the full Senate. A majority vote of the Senateis required to confirm a nominee.

SIGNIFICANT SUPREME COURT CASESSIGNIFICANT SUPREME COURT CASES

Marbury v. M adison (1803) Established principle of judicial review McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Strengthened national power over states Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Decided that slaves were property and not

citizens Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Established the “separate but equal” doctrine Gitlow v. New York (1925) Protected free expression from state action by

Fourteenth Amendment Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954) Abolished the “separate

but equal” doctrine and banned segregation in public schools Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Decided that states must provide an

attorney for poor defendants accused of committing felonies Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Decided that the police must inform suspects

of their rights when they are arrested Roe v. Wade (1973) Decided that women have full freedom to choose

abortion during the first three months of pregnancy under the right ofprivacy

Bush v. Gore (2000) Decided that a Florida manual recount would violatethe Fourteenth Amendment



Political Science 1

Som Chounlamountry

Exploring the US SupremeExploring the US SupremeCourts CasesCourts Cases

http://www.oyez.org/ Oyez.org is database and a comprehensive online

guide to the Supreme Court of the United States. Itcontains biographical information of both incumbentand historical justices of the United States SupremeCourt, in addition to details of most Supreme Courtcases. Notably, the website has original sound files oforal arguments and oral announcements of recentcases.

Search for Roe v. Wade . One of the result should be apodcast. Listen Jerry Goldman talks about "Roe v.Wade". Roe v. Wade - Roe Podcast and DownloadMP3 File (6025913 bytes).

congress and courts

Documents