1/9: Constitution: What role the govt. plays in society Sets up the basic structure of govt.

England: Oral Magna Carta Article Article Article Article Article Article Article 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: Legislative branch Executive branch- enforce the law Judicial branch (structure, empowers it and imposes limitations) Operational and relationship rules Amending the constitution Operational rules, reflection between states rights and federalists Ratification

Marbury v. Madison -Executive order, signed- appoint Marbury as a midnight judge -gave to secretary of state- John Marshall- Justice of Supreme Court- failure to deliver commission -Keep federalists in the government -Madison new secretary of State under Jefferson -Madison refused to deliver commission -Says it is good for 5 years -Madison says no -Marbury sues in Supreme Court tries to get a writ of mandamus- fulfill a duty -Discretionary- when signed it becomes a done deal -Marbury lost1/11: Writ of mandamus Issues court has to decide: if the act by congress was constitutional? To find i f they have jurisdiction, cant hear case if they do not have jurisdiction (articl e 3 section 2 of constitution) -Supreme Court justices are appointed holding good behavior for life- unless imp eached -pay is not cut because congress does not like decisions -all cases in law and equity -ratified in 1789 -continental congress turned into the Declaration of Independence -Articles of Confederation before the constitution -Is this case within the federal judicial power? If not, cannot be heard Once you figure out, decide which court has jurisdiction Cooper v. Aaron Arkansas wasnt upholding Brown v. Board of Education Separate is never equal- constitution, must integrate 1/18: Martin v. Hunters Lessee King gave Lord Fairfax land- was Fairfax an enemy alien? 1776 Revolution Virginia- Inquest of office- who holds title to Northern Neck Fairfax diesDenny Martin Fairfax inherits the land Treaty of 1783- No more forfeiture (1782) Northern Neck probably claimed by enemy alien and therefore forfeited (1785) Virginia gives land to Hunter (1791) Hunter sues to eject Martin 2 chains of Title 1. Hunter sued Martin 2. Hunter lost, Martin prevailed 3. Virginia court of appeals reversed Hunter prevails, Martin loses

4. Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals- no inquest of office Martin prevails, Hunter loses 5. **Remanded to Virginia Ct. of appeals- objected- which refuses to comply with SCOTUS mandate- Does supreme court have appellate jurisdiction? 6. Back to the Supreme Court Can the SC hear cases on appeal because of the treaty because of federal questio n- Treaties have to have a case or controversy, state court, and it will arise u nder federal law? Jurisdiction is over the case and not the court 1/23: 3 branches of government- the constitution defines what they do law must be consistent with the constitution All courts are of limited jurisdiction Muskrat v. US Court of claims against US on a contract- at this time Article 1 court- necessar y and proper Divide up land Decrease value of land when more people are added No property claim Remanded to court of claim because not within supreme court jurisdiction Must be in cases and controversy- required to have 2 adverse parties with legal in terests- US is not a party of interest Adverse- Muskrat mad at the government- not adverse for legal purposes- didnt hav e any land yet- saying unconstitutional a statute passed by congress Adverse litigants have to have adverse rights Get past Advisory opinion- adverse rights, adverse parties Political question Justicability- triable or a matter that can be brought before the court Baker v. Carr o Voting rights o Political issue but not a political question o Political questions are limited to those involving federal government o Division of authority o Legal question about a political issue o Example and a test Foreign relations Other branch has to decide policy questions- judicial standard Validity of enactment Amendment ratified Duration of hostility Republican form of government Status of Indian tribes Powell v. McCormack o Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to the coordinate branc hes of government- political question o In this case, only political issue, not political question o Exclusion and expulsion- difference- expulsion is you are already in off ice and can be kicked out by 2/3 vote- exclusion just prevents you from being se ated o Did he meet the qualifications? Yes. Why did they refuse to seat him? Un constitutional? No, can be found in the constitution o Defined by those 3 requirements in article 1 o Saying he is a bad guy is not textually demonstrable in the constitution o Fails to meet the 3 requirements he can be excluded o He can only be expelled for being a bad guy o Political question, not justiciable- if constitutional requirements are

broken, he can be excluded and there is a political question o But this is a legal question Nixon v. US o House adopted Articles of impeachment- House brings accusations- House h as sole power of impeachment- Article 1 o Senate has authority to try the case- convict him with 2/3 vote o Committee made a list of the uncontested facts o Some disputed facts o Violates constitutional grant of authority to the senate to try all impeac hments because it prohibits the whole senate from taking part in the hearings o Structurally, there is not court systemic knowledge, it is the senates jo b justiciability seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the dispute; where a court feels it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable Political question and justicability Ripeness International Longhoremens and warehousemens Union v. Boyd Permanent resident aliens being sent to Alaska Nobody had been subjected to it yet, no union members even had their bags packed Has not happened yet, not ripe- are we there yet? There being a real case or controversy Case or controversy must exist at the time filed to the time it is decided

Mootness DeFunis v. Odegaard Washington state trial court Trial court admitted him into law school Didnt ask for anything but an injunctive relief, different from Powell case, he w anted his salary that kept it from being moot even though his term was up- cant u n-break the window Voluntary cessation by plaintiff does not make moot