Article Review : Constitutional Law

Marbury v. Madison has been hailed as one of the most significant cases that the Supreme Court has ruled upon. In this paper, I will explain the origins and background in the case, discuss the major Constitutional issues it raised, and outline the major points of the courts decision. I will also explain the significance of this key decision.

Describe the Supremacy Clause and explain what happens when there is a direct conflict between federal and state law.

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

Such implied rights are only applicable if they are “plainly arising from the text of the Consititution, rather than assumptions upon which it is based, but which is does not express”. This supports a more recent trend to a purposive approach to interpretation of the constitution.

Discuss at least one Supreme Court case of significance related to three of the provisions of the First Amendment.

Judicial Review is one of the court's most important powers and arguably the most powerful one that this branch or any branch has. This is a power that allows the supreme court to make legislative and executive actions subject to review and possible invalidation. The power of Judicial Review was earned in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison. In this case it was decided that James Madison’s decisions to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace was unconstitutional, this has extended the power and now created what is known as judicial review. This has continued to affect laws and acts presently such as in the case of United States v. Nixon when Nixon was denied the powers of absolute executive privilege due to

In the historic ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges declaring same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, four justices voted against the majority, each giving his or her own reason for dissenting. This momentous decision arose many controversial questions, many believing our justice system was faulty in the decision making process for an issue of such gravity and lasting implications.

The task for this week was to discuss how the Supreme Court determines which cases to take on. The case that the Supreme Court takes on varies on many different factors, which must go into consideration prior to them choosing a case. The first step in the decision process of the Supreme Court is chose based on four of the nine justices agreeing to grant the petition. The second factor in the decision process is if the justices decide to take a case if it would resolve a major conflict, for example if it would be federal or constitutional. The third reason why the Supreme Court would hear a case is based upon if the lower echelon courts disregard past Supreme Court’s decisions. In this scenario the Supreme Court would take on the case to prove

The subject of sovereign immunity also challenges federalism, the idea that the government cannot be sued without its consent. This is an

The Eleventh Amendment provides “the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. Both Article III, § 2 and the Eleventh Amendment limit federal courts from hearing certain suits. The Eleventh Amendment enacts a State’s sovereign immunity from suit; however, a State may waive its Eleventh Amendment protection. U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Court recognizes that a State’s sovereign immunity is also extended to suits brought by the State’s citizens. A suit against a State cannot be brought in federal court under diversity jurisdiction because a citizen of another state may not sue the State. Furthermore, a suit against a State invoking federal question jurisdiction under Article III may also be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44

Because of this case, the Supreme Court has established their abilities to review or investigate into the other two branches when determining if certain actions or laws are constitutional. This is one of the first cases where the system of “checks and balances” has come into play, which has helped set the rulings for all of the cases after this when regarding other

A) Due process is defined as the fairness of the procedure and substantive due process (SDP) is defined as fairness of the law itself; the protection of fundamental rights from the government as outlined by the 5th and 14th Amendments (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property”). In West Coast Hotel (1937), Parrish sues for the difference between her wages and the minimum wage required by state law. The question was whether the minimum wage law violated the 5th Amendment. The court held the establishment of minimum wage constitutional. Parrish’s SDP, violated by the difference in her wage, was remedied by the minimum wage law. The law was fair. In our scenario, the law presented is not fair and does violate the liberty of property of the owners. Their SDP has been violated and their grievance was not remedied as was Parrish’s. One sees a similar scenario in Nollan, the question was whether the requirement to add an easement constituted a taking that was in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments. The Court said yes. California could use eminent domain for a “legitimate interest” as long as, as Scalia pointed out, the state “provided just compensation to the beachfront property owners.” The Court created the essential nexus test of legitimate state interest. The ordinance in this scenario has a major issues related to substantive due process. The determination of a “legitimate interest” of the city can be questioned. The city argued that the inclusion of

case can go t the Supreme Court.This paper will also identify the merits of a case that can lead to

Judicial restraint encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. Judicial activism is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the application law or they act like a legislative court instead of a traditional court. The difference is judicial restraint refers to the doctrine that judges' own philosophies or policy preferences should not be injected into the law while judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively reinterpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws. Impact of social and political environment for judicial restraint is when Gibbons vs. Ogden, the Supreme Court held the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the commerce