POSC 311 STUDY GUIDE
POSC 311 STUDY GUIDE POSC 311
Long Beach State
Popular in Constitutional Law Power
Popular in Political Science
This 4 page Study Guide was uploaded by Audra Oul on Wednesday March 9, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to POSC 311 at California State University Long Beach taught by James Fox in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 23 views. For similar materials see Constitutional Law Power in Political Science at California State University Long Beach.
Reviews for POSC 311 STUDY GUIDE
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 03/09/16
1. Describe the judicial philosophy of originalism. What are the major beliefs and assumptions that guide this type of interpretation? How does originalism compare to the notion of a “living” or flexible Constitution? Originalism is constitutional interpretation through originalism. It is the effort to preserve the original meaning of the Constitution. The belief and assumptions that guide this type of interpretation is the doctrine of original intent to apply provision according to what the Framers intended them to be. The original intent is the interpretation of the Constution with respect to their intent. Chief Justice Marshall was a judicial fidelity to originalism in Marbury v. Madison. Originalism compare to the notion of a “living” or flexible Constitution because the desire for individual rights and property. The Bill of Rights was to protect from the majority. The framers were wealthy and wise and committed to a representative government, avoiding dangers of the tyranny of the majority, considering creating a unitary system. The “living” or flexible Constitution follows the majority’s desires. As the society changes, the constution changes was the basis for the living constitution. A flexible constitution would be according to evolving standards. The framers failed to include a more elaborated form of rights, so James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights. The Third Amendment did not allow quartering of troops in citizen’s homes 2. Describe some of the noted causes that led to Shays’s Rebellion. What problems of the national government did this event showcase? Why is Shays’s Rebellion such an important event in the history of constitutional development in the United States? People in Massachusetts did not want to be taxed during 1786 and 1787, which proves the deficiencies of the Article of Confederation. The Congress lacked the power to regulate interstate commerce in 1786. Daniel Shays is a veteran from the Battle of Bunker Hill who led an army of farmers to rebel against the taxes from the state and the court. Farmers did not want foreclosure for their farms. The problems of the national government this event showcase because the national government was unable to make states pay their taxes. This shows the deficiency of the Articles of Confederation because Massachusetts state government was unable to get assistance from national confederation. Shay’s Rebellion was such an important event in the history of constitutional development in the United States because the failed unicameral was evident for revised or replacement for the Articles of Confederation. This called for a constitutional convention. 3. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion that upheld the constitutionality of the provision of “Obamacare” that required all Americans to obtain health insurance by 2014. Roberts does so by declaring this power as related to Congress’s longstanding power of taxation. Do you agree with his reasoning? Why or why not? Addressing the constitutional challenges to two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Obamacare): individual mandate and Medicaid expansion Congress wanted to enact the health insurance and decrease the health care costs. The individual mandate was to require individuals to have health insurance through their employer or through Medicaid or Medicare, or private company. Do not comply in 2014 would be penalty to pay the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It would be 2.5 percent of an individual’s household income. The second provision was to have Medicaid expansion, and that is requiring federal funding to states to the elderly, pregnant, and the disabled. Medicaid enacted in 1965, and it was in 1982 that States abide by the federal coverage standards for Medicaid. I agree with Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning who wrote the opinion because the Congress has the Constitutional authority to require individual mandate according to the commerce clause. The interstate commerce is impacted when individuals buy health insurance. Congress also has the power to tax as well. The Necessary and Proper Clause allowed the unhealthy individuals to be subsidized by their insurers. It was by the guaranteed issue and communityrating by commerce clause to tax to treat the unhealthy. 4. Citing particular Supreme Court decisions, both historic and modern, explain the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial activism is to for judges to exercise their power. Approaches jurisprudence (the study of the law) when judges are powerful because they see themselves as equal power with the legislative and executive branches for public policy making. There are not doctrinal like the judicial restraints. Scott v. Sandford (1857) was a judicial activist because it was an allowing slavery. The Supreme Court in Missouri was conservative to that. Judicial restraint is judges exercising their power with cautious because of adhering to precedents and decisions of other branches of government. The judges are not custodian of general welfare because that is for the state legislature and Congress. There is a limit to judicial injury in Constitutional matters because of mootness or ripeness are the doctrines. 5. Recount the facts, issue and decision in the infamous Dred Scott case. How did the Court’s decision impact events of the day and the Court itself? The Dred Scott case was Scott v. Sanford. It was after the case of Marbury v. Madison. This case also established the judicial review. Facts: Dred Scott was a slave who seek emancipation from his owner, John Sanford Scott. In 1834, Scott was under Dr. Emerson in the Free State Illinois to Fort Snelling in Wisconsin terrorist. The Missouri compromise of 1820, slavery was legal in Missouri. Dred Scott was passed to be under John Sanford after Dr. Emerson who was a surgeon died. Issue: Dred Scott argues that he is a free slave under the Missouri courts. Decision: The Missouri Supreme Court rejected the claim because Sanford and Dred Scott are citizens of different states. Scott’s demurrer (opposing the opposing party) to say he is citizen of Missouri. Sanford disagrees by stating he is a Negro and cannot be free slave. The Court’s decision impact events of the day and the Court itself because the courts need to examine reasonableness. The doctrine of substantive due process was to have Due Process Clause. The Government cannot infringe on life, liberty, and property without a process. This is a form of judicial activism to Court to invalidate an act of Congress. 6. Discuss the significance or importance of the Supreme Court’s decision in McCulloch v. Maryland? In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), it was unconstitutional for a state to tax the United States bank. The power of the Congress was expanded through the states. The implied power is the Necessary and Proper Clause found in Article I Section 8 Clause 18. It reveals the power of the Congress for federalism: power of the national government and state government. Maryland created an annual tax of $15,000 on any bank not chartered by the state. It was the Second Bank of the United States that was going to do this tax. The Congress established this bank after twenty year charter of the bank of the United States expired. James W. McCulloch reused to pay the taxes as cashier and was dealt with by the Baltimore County Court. It is implied power for the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I Section 8. Justice Marshall in the opinion viewed the enumerated power allowed the banks for regulating commerce, and the Necessary and Proper Clause allowed the Congress to act. Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the state’s tax. The Supreme Court reversed the decision to invalidate the state law in Maryland. This showed national supremacy. 7. What is the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review? From where does it derive? Did the founders approve of this practice? Why does the Court’s use of judicial review remain controversial to this day? The judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review is the power of the Court to invalidate acts of Congress according to Constitution. The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review derived from Marbury v. Madison when there was a question for a need to confront the President and Congress. Also, there was a need for a public policy. It was the question of the validity of Section 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789. The Federalists were the lame duck that signed the Judiciary Act of 1801 to reorganize the federal judiciary. Jefferson disagreed with the Judiciary Act of 1801. William Marbury ordered James Madison in the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to order Madison to deliver the commissions. Section 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 expanded the Article III Section 2 of the Constitution to allow the court to issue a writ of mandamus. This was deemed unconstitutional in John Marshall’s opinion. The founders would not approve of this practice of judicial review because they failed to address it. Article III did not voice this. It was for the Supreme Court to assert this authority. The Court’s use of judicial review remains controversial to this day because the Supreme Court used its power to limit government economic activity. It was controversial to the 19 century. In Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (1895), the court did not allow 2 percent tax on those income of $4,000 or more in a year. The tax to be apportioned by the states but law did not provide for apportioned so not constitutional. It should have upheld tax, instead. It is the populist assault for income taxes. In Lochner v. New York, the Court protected the right of individuals to contract as employers. This was a judicial activism to have the power of Supreme Court to not allow a state law to limit the hours that bakers could work. Joseph Lochner was fined to work more than 60 hours. The court did not have prestige and credibility after the Dred Scott case. Justice Taney delivered the opinion not to give rights and privileges to African American. It was to treat the slaves as property. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has the power to review legislation as early as 1796. Alexander Hamilton coauthor of the Federalist Papers strongly encouraged the judicial review. Federalist implies a strong central government. Nationalists are supporters of the constitution. Federalists lost the presidency and both houses of Congress to the Jefferson Republicans. Federalists wanted to preserve their influence within the national government by enlarging their control over the federal courts John Marshall in the Supreme Court asserted an act of the Congress was not constitutional. Judicial review is courts determining the acts of government invalid to Constitution. The Court’s use of judicial review remain controversial to today because it did not have its full power until the 20 century. The concept of judicial review was in Marbury v. Madison came and came to play afterwards as well in the Dred Scott case. But this was discrediting to invalidating a Missouri Compromise on the grounds of slavery, Missouri’s Supreme Court did not consider Dred Scott a free slave.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'