In 1116, express the graph shown in blue using interval notation. Also express each as an inequality involving x.
Final Exam Study Guide: Con Law Professor Denbow Vocabulary / Terms to know: Classical Liberalism Rationality Review Judicial Activism Republicanism Footnote 4 (Carolene Products) Judicial Restraint 13 Amendment Living Constitution Freedom of Contract Liberalism 14 Amendment Warren Court The Great Depression State Action Doctrine Fugitive Slave Clause Substantial Effects Test Civil Rights Act of 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1964 Warren Court (and critiques) Enumerated powers Concurrent powers Writ of Mandamus Judicial Review Habeas Corpus Interstate Commerce Police Powers Sherman Anti-Trust Act Desegregation Federal Fugitive Slave Act Revenue Clause Gun Free School Zone Act Federalism Lochner Era Court-Packing Plan The New Deal Legislative Deference Warren Court NIRA Interstate Commerce Clause National Labor Relations Board Violence Against Women Act The New Democrats Concurrence Dissention Narrow interpretation vs. broad Reconstruction Era Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction Majority Opinion What cases deal with which constitutional issues (match from list of readings from class) 1. Powers of the national government 2. Separation of powers 3. Judicial power 4. Federalism 5. Civil rights Case / Reading Background / Happenings Significance / Constitutional / Relevance /Court Decision /Takeaway The Declaration of Declares independence Gave rise to the Articles of Independence 1776 for the colonies from Confederation the British Crown Fear of strong central Life, liberty, and the government, attempting to limit pursuit of happiness national power (later amended to Gives rise to a debate between “property”) classical liberalism and Government should republicanism protect these rights Government is illegitimate if it does not have the consent of the people The Constitution 1776 General welfare and Struggle between national and liberty are most state governments (federalism) important Division between the North and North wanted stronger South central gov to regulate Separation of powers between 3 interstate commerce branches South wanted strong Emphasis on slavery and property central gov to protect rights “property” right (slaves) Property ownership very Lays out powers of important national and state governments Losurdo 2011 Talks about the Points out a clear tension b/w relationship between how the framers of the slavery and liberty Constitution and Liberalists view arguments in regards to personal liberty and their liberalism justification of slavery Cannot call for one Shows the importance of slavery while simultaneously disputes in creating the calling for the other constitution (3/5 clause, fugitive A despotic government slave) is the best at abolishing Points out contradiction within slavery rather than a liberalism “free government” Shows constitutional justification (direct democracy) of slavery Draws on ideas from Locke, Calhoun, Smith Federalist #10- James Madison Focuses on the Pushed for the ratification of the 1787 inevitability of factions constitution and a representative We must control the government (strong central) effects bc we cannot Relationship between national control the causes government and individual rights Democracies are not very good at this Republic are the best governments to control factions with a representative government Land ownership and property rights of those who govern emphasized Marbury vs. Madison 1803 Marbury wanted a writ Established judicial review and of mandamus to force power commission to be Gave credibility to the Court delivered system Dispute over if the court Established Constitutional had the power to issue Precedence the writ or if Marbury’s Unbiased opinion gives even more rights had even been credibility violated What the Supreme Court says Marshall delivers goes unbiased and in-depth decision Marbury has the right to a remedy, but the Court has no authority to offer one Judiciary Act of 1789 giving Congress the right to issue writ was passed through ordinary legislation and not through the Amendment process making It unconstitutional Gibbons vs. Ogden 1824 Gibbons owns federal Congress has the right to regulate license to operate ferry, interstate commerce- huge Ogden wants a establishment monopoly on this and This is an EXCLUSIVE power of seeks and acquires one congress from NY Dispute between national and Court rules that NY law state powers is in violation of the Overturns NY law and federal interstate commerce license for Ogden (national clause supremacy) ICC includes navigation Marshal shows judicial restraint Broad construction of ICC Worcester vs. Georgia 1832 Worcester convicted for Congress has the power to create being on native treaties with tribes, GA had no American lands without constitutional authority to uphold permit in GA the permit law GA law states that they States cannot pass legislation that must, this violates effect sovereign nations (Native federal treaties with Americans) Native Americans Struggle between national and Court overturns GA law state powers, issue of federalism and Worcester’s Holding unenforced by the conviction but he is not executive, ignored (separation of released by orders from powers) Jackson Prigg vs. Pennsylvania 1842 Prigg; slave catcher Issues of federalism capturing an escaped National supremacy slave and her family Established more slaveholding from free territory security for the South Arrested for this by PA for violating their personal liberty laws Court rules that the Fugitive Slave clause allows for the recapture of escaped slaves and that personal liberty laws are not constitutional Dred Scott vs. Sanford 1857 Scott and family taken Slaves established as property to free territory for more firmly many years- master Territory governance- national dies; are they free powers Court says no, salve Slaves are not citizens and holders have individual therefore cannot litigate (civil “right” to property and rights) Congress can’t make Judicial activism is shown in this these changes in new decision; I a political decision territories Strengthened security of slavery Congress does have the Established that congress had power to impart limited power in the newly “needful rules and acquired territories regulations” in new territories, but the Court dismisses the abolishing of slavery as not needful; says this text is “narrow” This provision must be applied ONLY to territories they had in 1776 at the time of its drafting th Lincoln’s 4 of July Address Justifies his launching of Separation of powers – executive 1861 the Civil War while and legislative Congress was out of Individual rights / liberties session and his President has the duty to protect suspension of habeas and preserve the constitution and corpus the people Although declaring war is an exclusive power of congress, Lincoln says that the South presents a threat to the general public and therefore he has a constitutional duty to act and stop that threat Ex Parte Merryman 1861 Merryman arrested Separation of powers under the suspension of Individual rights habeas Powers of the national Does the President have government the authority to do this Civil war as historical context Court (NOT a Supreme Court decision) says no, he does not Asserts that the framers were afraid of a powerful executive Bates Opinion 1861 Further justifies Separation of powers Lincoln’s actions Draws attention to a too powerful Refers to inaugural oath executive or legislative of vowing to preserve the constitution and protect the people Lincoln was within his rights to take these measures Slaughter- House Case 1873 After Reconstruction National vs state government Amendments power Butcher’s unregulated Police powers and dumping waste; LA 13 and 24 amendments places regulations address only issues of race and nothing else Broad vs. narrow construction th Is this within their rights Swain’s dissent says the 14 regarding police amendment applies to much powers Court says yes broader circumstances (equal Creates a monopoly rights and protections) This ruling STILL stands Civil Rights Cases 1883 Series of cases Limits national power questioning the th th Issues of race with 13 and 14 constitutionality of amendments certain acts of Congress 13 abolishes slavery, but Civil Rights Act of 1875 majority says that discrimination prohibits discrimination does not fall under this (narrow in public view) accommodations 14 privileges and immunities is a Court says that they state power (State Action Doc) can’t do this under the Harlan’s dissent: says that there is State Action Doctrine no distinction between slavery and that this falls under and discrimination in the 14 th police powers Congress cannot restrict private actions, only state U.S vs. EC Knight 1895 Trust agreements b/w Very narrow construction of ICC companies create Interstate commerce monopolies Court says Congress is infringing EC Knight has huge on private company’s rights to sugar monopoly that monopolize Congress wants to make Issues between national and void state powers (federalism) Sherman Anti-Trust act Manufacturing not included in ICC allows Congress to Harlan’s dissent: Court is worried prohibit them about destroying police powers Court rules they can’t but they are destroying do this bc ICC does not commerce powers in the process include manufacturing Police powers control manufacturing Insular Cases 1901 Deals with territories of Territory incorporation Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Established and further defines Guam U.S. citizenship Does the U.S. have the Strict view of the equal rights and power to levy export protections taxes on them 14 amendment doesn’t Court says yes, that the specifically address “territories” th revenue clause does not Decision uses the 13 apply to them bc they amendment and previous are not citizens of the congressional acts to decide U.S. (uncommon) to assert that While they are not “Congress won’t abuse their citizens they still have power bc they have Anglo-Saxon some constitutional values” protections, but not all Says that if Congress does not intend on making acquired territories states, they can levy taxes and not give full citizenship The Commonwealth Club Everyone has the right Powers of national government Address- FDR 1934 to his own property and Established a new meaning of therefore the security property rights of his savings Infringing on privatization NIRA: government Providing a more robust role for mandate initiative that government in the economy asserts that the New Deal is important context President can industries have the right to regulate themselves Wages, hours, and employees are under this Part of the New Deal in an attempt to raise prices and combat deflation This clearly violates the understanding of the Const. Schechter Poultry 1935 Poultry company that Established direct and indirect imports chicken from effects, changes interpretation of out of state to sell in- the ICC state Federalism Federal government Limits congressional power in wants to regulate this regards to ICC under NIRA Court refuses to look at NIRA Poultry Codes: 40 economical context of Great hour minimum work Depression week, min wage, strict health and safety codes Schechter sells sick chickens and refuses to impose regulations Congress claims they have the power to regulate under ICC as Schechter is importing the chickens Court says no they don’t, processing of chickens does not count as ICC and that the selling of sick chickens does not have a DIRECT effect on ICC This is a state police power; if we give congress the power to regulate indirect effects, what can’t they do Court-Packing Plan – FDR Court has been striking Separation of powers down numerous New FDR wanted younger justices that Deal legislations, FDR weren’t “outdated” on current comes up with plan issues during the New Deal Era Proposes legislation Introduces the idea of legislative that would enable him deference to add a justice to the Never is passed court for every one over 70 years old; up to 6 justices This would be a 15 justice court Thinks the Court should defer to the legislature more often and not “prevent democracy” NRLB vs. Jones and Laughlin Steel company fires Draws a brighter line between Steel 1937 employees for joining a direct and indirect effects on ICC labor union Power of national government NRLA says they cannot Federalism do this and they must Expands Congressional power rehire, steel company under ICC says no Congress says they have the power of regulation under ICC Court says that yes, this act is constitutional Seemingly changes its mind from Schechter, but the Court focuses more on the individual rights of the employees Rule that the national scope of this company effects interstate commerce directly and that labor strife falls under ICC U.S. vs. Carolene Products 1938 Filled Milk Act prohibits Established rationality review Footnote 4 the shipment of filled Separation of powers milk across state lines Sets precedence for legislative Is this act constitutional deference under ICC Established a role for the judiciary Rational basis test / as limited rationality review is used to determine if there is legitimate government interest here Court says that this is not a decision for the judiciary to make and defers to the legislative Footnote 4 states that the court will rule with more scrutiny on cases regarding civil and minority rights, but will defer to the legislature during cases of economic, commercial interests The Southern Manifesto 1956 After the Brown v. Struggle between state and Board opinion federal- federalism mandating integration Civil rights and discrimination of schools Narrow interpretation of the 14 th Southern states accuse amendment the Supreme Court of Divides the South and North on judicial activism the issue of race Calling for resistance of Attempts to lower the credibility integration of the Court Say the states have the rights to educate their children how they want under police powers Say the Const and the 14th do not mention education Plessy v Ferguson used as precedent – “separate but equal” Eisenhower Address to the Affirms judicial review Attempts to establish role of the Nation an supremacy court If states can always take Powers of federal government it upon themselves to Federalism challenge the courts, all of our rights are in danger We must recognize court authority to protect them He is not defending Civil Rights Cooper vs. Aaron 1968 In the wake of Brown v Established a precedence of Board decision supremacy Arkansas government The judiciary has the authority to refused to adhere to interpret the Constitution, not the desegregation in states schools and passed laws Therefore nullification by the to allow children to not states of UCSC decisions is not attend school allowed under the Const Arkansas School Board Binds states to adhere to USCS petitioned to send black decisions children back to black Marbury is used as a precedent schools and defer the Civil rights desegregation plan for Powers of the national two years due to the government chaos and violence it Federalism was causing Court says no, it is unconstitutional to disobey a supreme court decision, supremacy clause It is also unconstitutional to uphold this law under the 14A and the equal protection clause Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. Civil Rights Act of 1964 Establishes the “substantial United States 1964 prohibits discrimination effect” principle (if something has in public a substantial effect on ICC or not) accommodations Rationality review and deference used as this deals with commerce including motels and Expands congressional power hotels (Title II) under the ICC Motel refuses to rent Powers of the national rooms to blacks and government says that the CRA is Sets a precedent for Congress unconstitutional bc it is using the ICC to accomplish goals restricting private that are not economic actions Court says that Congress does not have the authority to implement integration in public accommodation BUT they can pass title II under ICC People who stay in motels are usually from out of state, which is navigation, which is IDD Court distinguishes Title II under from Civil Rights Cases of 1883, meaning they aren’t controlling here Court limits the scope of its reasoning by not going any further than addressing ICC Rationality review Reagan First Inaugural 1983 Government too big Powers of the national Government is the government problem Asserts that the government Gov’t did not create should not play a robust role in states, states created the economy gov’t Government undermines states Wants to shrink the and individual according to federal gov and says Reagan this is the only way to turn the economy around Complete opposite of FDR Meese 1987 Constitutional law vs. Asserts a lesser role for the The Law of the Constitution Constitution judiciary Law binds the parties to Separation of powers- limits dispute judiciary All branches of Powers of the national government play a role government in interpreting the constitution UCSC decisions should not be the supreme law Rehnquist 1976 There is no obvious way Limits judiciary Notion of a Living Constitution of interpreting the Separation of powers Const. bc some of the Principle of deference language is general and Narrow construction of the vague constitution We cannot be confined to the situations that were present at the time of the founding The judiciary shouldn’t second guess other branches; judges should be dethatched and subjective Judicial restraint on social and political issues – defer to other branches Critique of more expansive living Constitution that states that the Court can interpret expansively Brennan 1985 Framers intent as Broad construction The Constitution of the United interpretation strategy Expansion of judicial power as States is inadequate protective of minority rights Changing society calls Powers of the national for changing government interpretations Believes that a minimalist view takes away minority rights, which the government has a duty to protect Classical liberalism The government needs to protect minorities (prisoners) from politic and infringement of rights Clinton 1996 Part of the New Limitation of national government Fourth Annual Message Democrats and power Says “Era of big Focus on social welfare government is over” There is not a program to fix every problem, big government does not have the answers Opposite of FDR but similar to Reagan Clinton focuses on a regulation of existing government rather than its expansion U.S. vs. Lopez Lopez brings gun to high Congressional power under ICC school, arrested under restricted Guns Free School Zones Precedence of Gibbons used not Act for its decision but for the Appellate and Supreme implications of limitations on its overturn the conviction decision in regards to ICC Congress says that GFZA Powers of the national is constitutional under government ICC bc bringing a Substantial affects test used weapon to school that could potential cause a violent crime affects schooling, and therefore affects students abilities to learn, affecting future vocations, affecting ICC. Court says this is ridiculous and could be applied to almost anything if allowed; what couldn’t Congress regulate Gibbons vs. Ogden used to show that there are clear limits on what is ICC and what is not; there must be room for intrastate actions too GFSA has nothing to do with commerce U.S vs. Morrison 2000 Girl at VA Tech raped by Congressional power vs judicial- two male students, VT separation of powers and Virginia court State and national power- doesn’t do much to federalism punish them Limits congressional power under Violence Against the 14 and ICC Women Act is passed by Substantial effect principle used Congress, 13981 states again that survivors of gender Referral to the State Action motivated violence can Doctrine, giving more power to seek punitive and the states in this case compensatory damages ONLY striking down 13981 of through a civil suit VAWA, not the entire thing Does congress have the authority to pass this part of VAWA under ICC th or the Section 5, 14 A Section 5 allows congress to use appropriate legislation th to enforce the 14 No for both, Court says that gender motivated violence does not have a substantial effect on ICC and has nothing to do with it Court says no under Section 5 bc this is a slippery slope, that there is no distinction between federal and state powers if it is passed Uses Civil Rights Cases and State Action Doctrine- Congress can only prohibit state actions; this is aimed at individual perpetrators therefore is unconstitutional Dissentions assert that this should be subject to a rationality review and that ICC jurisprudence is incoherent Gonzales vs. Raich 2005 Compassionate Use Act Established a precedence of broad is passed in 1996 to interpretation of ICC in economic permit the use and cases, but s strict one in moral cultivation of medicinal cases marijuana Expands congressional power 2 women growing under ICC and limits states- marijuana in federalism accordance with CA Powers of the national law, feds become government involved and destroy Substantial effect and deference their crop to the legislature in economic Feds say it is a violation cases of the Controlled Court continues to draw bright Substance Act of 1970 lines in regards to direct, indirect, Raich challenges the and substantial effects on ICC constitutionality of this Does Congress have the power to prohibit local cultivation and use of marijuana that is in accordance with CA law YES In the aggregate, medicinal marijuana has a substantial effect on marijuana commerce as a whole Congress has the power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic class of activities that have a substantial effect on ICC Rationality review shows clear economic activity (distinguishes this from Lopez and Morrison) Torture Memos 2002 Congress has the Relates to Meese’s idea of narrow exclusive power to judicial authority declare war Greatly expands the executive Section 0340A of the and limits the legislative – Const prohibits public separation of powers officials from Limits the role of legislative and committing torture judicial branch in military affairs President has exclusive power of being Commander in Chief To what extent can congress limit this power of the president Torture memos were given by officials within the DOJ giving their opinion on whether or not they can torture detainees They interpret congressional statute prohibiting this so narrowly that it means nothing Interpret commander in chief privilege so broadly that Congress couldn’t possibly prohibit it Hamdi vs. Runsfield 2004 U.S. Citizen captured in Powers of the national Afghanistan government Determined as enemy Separation of powers combatant an held on Established principle for detaining U.S. soil enemy combatants He requests writ of Context of the Iraqi / Afghan war habeas corpus; gets it Executive cannot be to powerful Does congress have the Huge expansion of executive authority to detain power in regards to military people deemed as actions enemies YES But, if they are US citizens, thy have a right to due process and a chance to change their enemy status before an impartial authority War is not a blank check for the executive, cannot give them too much power or else liberty is at stake Practice Essay Questions: refer to the table to find which cases you can use for each prompt! 1. Debates over slavery were key to the founding of the United States and to the development and adoption of the US Constitution. Slavery and, after the Civil War, the status of former slaves continued to play a key role in Constitutional debates and cases concerning the powers of the national government and federalism from the founding to today. Write an essay that traces the history of Constitutional debates and Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the powers of the national government and federalism as they were expressed in cases and issues concerning slavery and the status and rights of former slaves. 2. The powers of the national government have contracted and expanded at different points in US history. Many of these shifts have been reflected in and brought about through the Court’s interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause from the Early National Era to the present. Write an essay that traces the history of Constitutional debates and Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the powers of the national government as they have been expressed in cases and issues concerning the Interstate Commerce Clause. Be sure to provide adequate historical context for the debates and Court decisions you discuss. 3. Constitutional conflicts over the separation of powers and judicial authority tend to flare up in times of social and political conflict and upheaval. Write an essay that traces the history of Constitutional debates and Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning the separation of powers and judicial authority from the Early National Era to today. Be sure to provide adequate historical context, especially regarding social and political conflicts, for the debates and Court decisions you discuss. 4. The Court and political actors often express their views on how critically or skeptically the Court should review acts of the legislature. Drawing on course concepts and examples from course material, including politicians’ speeches, the writings of judges, and Court decisions, write an essay that examines the differing views on when and whether the Court should defer to the legislature. Be sure to provide adequate Constitutional and historical context for the debates and Court decisions you discuss.