ConLaw

What is a Political Question?

the determination by a court (particularly the Supreme Court) that an issue raised about the conduct of public business is a "political" issue to be determined by the legislature (including Congress) or the executive branch and not by the courts. Since 1960 the U.S. Supreme Court has been willing to look at some questions previously considered "political," such as "one-man-one-vote," as constitutional issues.

Do you think political questions or ripeness played a role Doe v. Bush - or both?

"No less significant, plaintiffs' claims are not ripe for review by this Court. Despite plaintiffs' suggestions that armed hostilities are "imminent," no ground invasion of Iraq has yet taken place." In Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1990), concluded that a complaint challenging the military buildup in the Persian Gulf was not ripe for judicial resolution because "the Executive Branch has not shown a commitment to a definitive course of action sufficient to support ripeness."

What is the overall process for granting cert?

A substantial federal question must be present. The federal question must be crucial to the decision. The losing party must have exhausted all state remedies.

Why did Hamilton Assert (Federalist #78) that the Court was the least dangerous branch? (What did he mean?)

"The judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks." The courts are reactive rather than proactive. Cases must come to them. They aren't elected. Congress has the power to change the laws. The president appoints future Justices.

Checks on the Legislature

Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress House must originate revenue bills Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house All journals are to be published

What is the structure of the federal judiciary?

1 USSC 13USCA 94 USDC

Is the determination of an issue as a "political question" always an agreed upon one? (Hint: see the note on Goldwater v. Carter)

?

Why do we begin Constitutional Law with a review of the judicial power?

?

Did the Court rule that redistricting was political question in the Baker v. Carr case?

A challenge to the reapportionment is not a political question, but one of constitutionality as it relates to the state's carrying out of rules in the Constitution.

What is precedent?

A court decision that is cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law in later cases.

What are adequate and independent state grounds?

Adequate and independent state grounds is related, but comes directly from Article III's grant of jurisdiction. The USSC and such inferior federal courts shall be vested with the judicial power which extends to "cases arising under this Contitution, laws of the U.S. and federal treaties..." That is, federal courts can hear federal questions only. Federal courts have NO JURISDICTION over state constitutions/laws. That is because article III gives them power only over cases arising under the USConstituiton/USlaws/UStreaties (ie. federal questions). State Courts can hear both state and federal questions. Federal questions are appealable to USSC after being heard by the state court of last resort. If a state court ruling turns on FEDERAL questions = USSC has authority to review those federal questions. If a state court ruling turns on (is decided) on the basis of mixed FEDERAL and state issues = USSC has authority to review federal questions only. If a state court ruling turns on (is decided) on STATE questions that are adequate (sufficient) and independent (not related to or mixed with any federal question) = USSC has NO AUTHORITY to review the case. Why not? It was decided on the basis of state law (adequate and independent of any federal question). Therefore there is no federal jurisdiction under article III. As noted in class. One way state courts can forestall federal review is to clearly say in the ruling "this case has been decided on adequate and independent state grounds." As with justiciability, however, it is up to the Supreme Court do determine whether that is true or not -- that is, the USSC decides whether it has jurisdiction or not (just like the USSC is the final arbiter of whether a case is justiciable or not).

From where in the Constitution does the concept of justiciability emerge?

Article III

Why is the Bush v. Gore ruling often criticized?

Baker v. Carr The Court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim, although nonjusticiable under the Guarantee Clause, could be reviewed under the Equal Protection Clause.

What is justiciability?

Capable of being decided by a court.

What does a denial of cert. mean?

Case won't be heard. No opinion issued.

Why was Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 ruled unconstitutional? How did Marshall justify the Court's exercise of judicial review?

Chief Justice Marshall held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it sought to confer on the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over a type of dispute over which the Constitution gave it only appellate jurisdiction. Where a statute violated the Constitution it was the duty of the courts to apply the Constitution as paramount law which superceded inconsistent statutes. These two principles-the preeminence of the Constitution and judicial review-were not explicitly provided for in the Constitution but are supported by various types of constitutional argument. Marbury can be read as giving the judiciary power of judicial review or as giving the judiciary the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution. Although many have argued that other branches also have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution, the Court increasingly contends that it has the ultimate power to do so.

Can Congress make exceptions to the USSC's appellate jurisdiction?

Congress has the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

What is Gibson's argument against judicial review in Eakin v. Raub?

Counter to Marbury v. Madison, Judge Gibson (Dissenting) Argues that Judicial Review need not exist "I am of [the] opinion, that it rests with the people, in whom full and absolute sovereign power resides, to correct abuses in legislation, by instructing the representatives to repeal the obnoxious act."

What is the power of judicial review? Is it explicitly provided for in the Constitution?

It is the power of the judicial branch of government to decide whether or not acts of government are constitutional. The Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review.

In Doe v. Bush, why did the 1st Circuit refuse to rule on the merits?

Doe v. Bush was a court case challenging the constitutionality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The case was dismissed, since the plaintiffs failed "to raise a sufficiently clear constitutional issue."

What were the 3 questions in Marbury v. Madison?

Does Marbury have a right to the commission? Does the law grant Marbury a remedy? Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?

Why has the Court more frequently exercised the political questions doctrine in foreign affairs?

Don't want to second guess the president or Congress

Why is Bush v. Gore viewed as a potential political question?

Even in the rare case in which a State's "manner" of making and construing laws might implicate a structural constraint, Congress, not this Court, is likely the proper governmental entity to enforce that constraint. See U.S. Const., amend. XII; 3 U.S.C. § 1—15; cf. Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565, 569 (1916) (treating as a nonjusticiable political question whether use of a referendum to override a congressional districting plan enacted by the state legislature violates Art. I, §4); Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, 42 (1849). • A majority of the Justices saw a national electoral emergency • The Court flicked away justiciability concerns, even though the Constitution appears to entrust the resolution of presidential election disputes to the states and Congress • The majority concluded that principles of federalism did not require strong deference to state officials (including judges) in interpreting and implementing their election laws • All but two Justices discovered an unprecedented Equal Protection Clause "right" to uniform standards in counting ballots The dissenting Justices accused the majority of abandoning judicial restraint by failing to dismiss on political question grounds and by ignoring precedent concerning judicial federalism and Equal Protection

Why was federal judicial review of the states important?

Martin authorized the second great expansion of the federal judiciary in the Marshall Court era and established the primacy of the federal judiciary over state courts on questions of federal law.

What were John Marshall's 2 goals as Chief Justice?

First, he established the power and prestige of the judiciary department, so that it could claim equal status with Congress and the Executive in a balanced government of separated powers. He asserted the judiciary's authority to expound the Constitution as paramount law and to hold the other branches accountable to that law. Second, Marshall interpreted the Constitution in ways that significantly enhanced the powers of the federal government. He believed that those powers, though enumerated, should be construed expansively in order to accomplish the great ends of government.

Did the Court apply the Flast exception in Daimler? Why not?

However, the Court previously cited Flast's extraction requirement in DaimlerChrysler v. Cuno. In Cuno, the Court noted that the Flast Court ―understood the injury' alleged in Establishment Clause challenges to federal spending to be the very extract[ion] and spen[ding]' of tax money' in aid of religion alleged by a plaintiff In addition, the dissent pointed out that the Court had previously reached a decision on the merits of Establishment Clause cases involving tax credits without questioning the claimants' standing. However, as the majority noted, those cases did not mention standing and thus did not stand for the proposition that no jurisdictional defect existed. Without mentioning or otherwise ruling on standing, those cases do not serve as binding precedent for purposes of taxpayer standing or judicial review. Courts would indeed risk grave error if they relied on or assumed un-stated rules of law from prior cases. Any such judicial practice would greatly undermine stare decisis. Furthermore, just as every other court ―has an independent obligation to consider standing, so does the Court in Winn. All courts, including the United States Supreme Court, retain the authority to grant or deny standing sua sponte, even if the parties or lower courts do not raise the issue. In Winn, the Court duly exercised its authority to deny standing.

Checks on the Executive

Impeachment power (House) Trial of impeachments (Senate) Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes May override Presidential vetoes Senate approves departmental appointments Senate approves treaties and ambassadors Approval of replacement Vice President Power to declare war Power to enact taxes and allocate funds President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address

How does Baker define a political question?

In Baker v Carr (1962), the Court concluded that the political question doctrine did not bar courts from reaching the merits of a challenge brought against Tennessee's system of apportioning its state legislature. Although the case was "political" in the sense that it was about politics, and there were questions about how courts might grant relief if Tennessee's apportionment scheme was declared unconstitutional, the Court saw neither as reasons for invocation of the political question doctrine.

Any exceptions to the taxpayer standing cases? (Hint see footnote 29).

In Flast, the Court created an exception to the rule against tax-payer standing under the Establishment Clause if a claimant can establish a personal stake in the outcome. Taxpayers were found to have standing, however, in Flast v. Cohen, 333 to contest the expenditure of federal moneys to assist religious-affiliated organizations. The Court asserted that the answer to the question whether taxpayers have standing depends on whether the circumstances of each case demonstrate that there is a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated. First, there must be a logical link between the status of taxpayer and the type of legislative enactment attacked; this means, a taxpayer must allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Article I, Sec. 8, rather than also of incidental expenditure of funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute. Second, there must be a logical nexus between the status of taxpayer and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged; this means, the taxpayer must show the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power, rather than simply to argue the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress. Both Frothingham and Flast met the first test, because they attacked a spending program. Flast met the second test, because the establishment clause of the First Amendment operates as a specific limitation upon the exercise of the taxing and spending power, while Frothingham had alleged only that the Tenth Amendment had been exceeded. Reserved was the question whether other specific limitations constrained the taxing and spending clause in the same manner as the establishment clause. 334

What is the importance of Martin v. Hunters Lessee?

In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), the Supreme Court asserted its authority under Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to review state court decisions dealing with federal law. In so doing, the Court rejected the notion of dual judicial sovereignty, in which the state courts and the federal courts have separate and independent domains of power, and instead asserted the primacy of federal courts over federal law.

Why could Sosna's case be heard?

In Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975), the plaintiff represented a class that was challenging an Iowa law that required persons to reside there for a year before seeking a divorce in Iowa's courts. The Supreme Court held that, although the plaintiff successfully divorced in another state, her attorneys could continue to competently advance the interests of other members of the class.

Who decides whether an issue is justiciable?

In each case, it is the court (or a court -- the judges to whom the case is presented themselves) who will review the justiciability questions (or ignore them) and decide whether the case is justiciable. If the court determines the issue is NOT justiciable, they will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the case itself. If the court decides the case IS justiciable, they will go ahead and decide the case on the merits.

What are mootness and ripeness?

In the U.S. federal judicial system, a moot case must be dismissed, there being a constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The reason for this is that Article Three of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of all federal courts to "cases and controversies". Thus, a civil action or appeal in which the court's decision will not affect the rights of the parties is ordinarily beyond the power of the court to decide, provided it does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions. A textbook example of such a case is the United States Supreme Court case DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974). The plaintiff was a student who had been denied admission to law school, and had then been provisionally admitted during the pendancy of the case. Because the student was slated to graduate within a few months at the time the decision was rendered, and there was no action the law school could take to prevent that, the Court determined that a decision on its part would have no effect on the student's rights. Therefore, the case was dismissed as moot

What is recusal and when do judges have to recuse themselves?

Is the process by which a judge voluntarily removes himself from hearing a particular case because of bias, conflict of interest, relation to a party, attorney or witness, or for any other reason. Supreme Court Justices do not have to remove themselves.

Judicial Branch - Checks on the Executive

Judicial review Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment

Judicial Branch - Checks on the Legislature

Judicial review Seats are held on good behavior Compensation cannot be diminished

Can federal courts hear state questions?

NO

Did the Court agree with the decision below when it denies cert?

No

Do Taxpayers have automatic standing to sue under Article III?

No

Did the Court reach the merits of McCardle's claim? Why not?

No. Congress changed the Constitution. The Supreme Court under the new law was unable to hear the case.

Does it guarantee Supreme Court review as a matter of right?

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion.

What is the background to the Marbury Case?

On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams's term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams's term. William Marbury (P) was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison (D), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus "...to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."

What is the difference between original and appellate jurisdiction?

Original jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and decide cases. Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a court to review a case for errors of law.

Executive Branch - Checks on the Judiciary

Power to appoint judges Pardon power

What is the Rule of 4?

Practice that permits four of the nine justices to grant a writ of certiorari.

Why does Congress not regulate the Court's appellate jurisdiction more often?

Prefer to show restraint

What purpose(s) do such reciprocal arrangements of checks and balances serve?

Prevents one branch from usurping the power of another branch.

What is Rule 10?

Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers: (a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power; (b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals; (c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.

What is the case or controversy requirement?

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court' s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

Checks on the Judiciary

Senate approves federal judges Impeachment power (House) Trial of impeachments (Senate) Power to initiate constitutional amendments Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court Power to set jurisdiction of courts Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court

What are separated powers?

Separated powers comes from the basis of the American governmental system on this idea of three separate branches: executive, judicial, and legislative. The three branches are distinct and have checks and balances on each other. In this way, no one branch can gain absolute power or abuse the power they are given. We have the executive branch headed by the President and includes the bureaucracy. The legislative branch includes both houses of Congress: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.

Why has standing been rejected in most taxpayer cases?

Standing is lacking when a litigant attempts to sue to contest governmental action that he claims injures him as a taxpayer. The Court denied standing to a taxpayer noting that a federal taxpayer's ''interest in the moneys of the Treasury . . . is comparatively minute and indeterminate'' and that ''the effect upon future taxation, of any payment out of the funds . . . [is] remote, fluctuating and uncertain,'' the Court ruled that plaintiff had failed to allege the type of ''direct injury'' necessary to confer standing.

Why do we say justiciability is an elastic concept?

Standing is not considered in every case to same degree Justiciability is a bit elastic, because the courts do not give the same attention to these issues in all cases. That is, they sometimes use justiciability as way of avoiding ruling on the merits. Sometimes they give very little consideration to justiciability issues (that is, they gloss over or reject challenges regarding standing or timing etc.). And not all justices will agree as to whether a particular case is or is not justiciable.

What were the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation that led to calls for revision?

The Articles represented a weak central government: there was no chief executive with any power, there was no federal judiciary, and the Congress was severely limited in what it could do. The Confederation Congress represented the thirteen states through one vote each, regardless of state population. Under the Articles, the Congress could not levy taxes or regulate trade between the states. The Confederation Congress did not even have the power to draft soldiers. Legislation could only be approved by a 9 out of 13 vote. Under the Constitution, a bill becomes a law if a majority passes it and it is signed by the President. Amendments to the Articles had to be by unanimous vote while the later Constitution stipulated a three quarter majority of all states. The Constitution would be considered the "supreme law of the land" and subordinate the sovereignty of individual states under a strong federal system.

How does the Constitution establish the separation of powers?

The Constitution established separation of powers in several ways. The way most recognize is through checks and balances. There are three branches in the United States government as established by the Constitution. First, the Legislative branch makes the law. Second, the Executive branch executes the law. Last, the Judicial branch interprets the law. Each branch has an effect on the other. Legislative Branch

Was case or controversy requirement met in Muskrat? Why or why not?

The Court found the lawsuits authorized by the act to be thinly veiled attempts to obtain advisory opinions, since the constitutional requirements of justiciability and an actual case or controversy were not satisfied. Justice william r. day, writing for the Court, predicted that if the justices rendered a judgment in the case, the result will be that this court, instead of keeping within the limits of judicial power and deciding cases or controversies arising between opposing parties, as the Constitution intended it should, will be required to give opinions in the nature of advice concerning legislative action, a function never conferred upon it by the Constitution.

In what cases does the USSC have original jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court also has "original jurisdiction" in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

What is the jurisdiction of the federal courts?

The jurisdiction of the federal courts is spelled out in Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction because they can hear only two main types of cases: 1. Diversity of Citizenship - Federal courts can have jurisdiction over a case of a civil nature in which parties are residents of different states and the amount in question exceeds the amount set by federal law (currently $75,000). The federal courts are often required to apply state law when dealing with these cases since the issues concern matters of state law. The fact that the parties are from different states and that the amount in question is high enough is what manages to get such cases into federal court. 2. Federal Question - Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases that arise under the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made under the authority of the United States. These issues are the sole prerogative of the federal courts and include the following types of cases: a. Suits between states - Cases in which two or more states are a party. b. Cases involving ambassadors and other high-ranking public figures - Cases arising between foreign ambassadors and other high-ranking public officials. c. Federal crimes - Crimes defined by or mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or those defined and/or punished by federal statute. Such crimes include treason against the United States, piracy, counterfeiting, crimes against the law of nations, and crimes relating to the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce. However, most crimes are state matters. d. Bankruptcy - The statutory procedure, usually triggered by insolvency, by which a person is relieved of most debts and undergoes a judicially supervised reorganization or liquidation for the benefit of the person's creditors. e. Patent, copyright, and trademark cases

What did Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provide?

The Virginia court maintained that Section 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act, which expressly allowed the Supreme Court to review decisions of state supreme courts, was unconstitutional. The court argued that the U.S. Constitution did not provide for such a review in its text, and that the states, as independent governments within the federal system, had final say over federal laws in cases litigated in state courts. On second appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution did allow the Supreme Court to review state court decisions concerning federal laws (including treaties and the Constitution). Justice Joseph Story wrote the Court's opinion (Chief Justice John Marshall held an interest in Fairfax's land and recused himself from the case). Story first noted that the U.S. Constitution, Article III, implicitly allows Congress to decide whether the Supreme Court may review state decisions of federal law, and that Congress properly authorized such review in passing the Judiciary Act of 1789. Story went on to explain that the Constitution does not guarantee the states total independence from the federal government, and in fact is full of restrictions on state power. While state judges are bound to the same U.S. Constitution and laws as are federal judges, the final interpretation of such laws is best left to a single, competent entity -- the U.S. Supreme Court

What is the abstention doctrine?

The concept under which a federal court exercises its discretion and equitable powers and declines to decide a legal action over which it has jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution and statutes where the state judiciary is capable of rendering a definitive ruling in the matter. abstention doctrine

Why did the Court deny standing in Allen v. Wright?

The court found that the asserted right to hold the government to the law is not enough by itself to create standing to sue. Nor is discrimination enough unless the plaintiff is personally denied equal treatment by the government. Here, the link between IRS standards and school discrimination was too tenuous. The Court concluded that the doctrine of the separation of powers dictated this result, because otherwise the courts could always be called upon to restructure the Executive branch.

What is the distinction between a discretionary and Ministerial Act (in terms of judicial review)?

The distinction between a ministerial and discretionary act is well delineated. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment.

What were the issues that split the Constitutional Convention?

The most contentious disputes revolved around the composition and election of the Senate, how "proportional representation" was to be defined (whether to include slaves or other property), whether to divide the executive power between three persons or invest the power into a single president, how to elect the president, how long his term was to be and whether he could stand for reelection, what offenses should be impeachable, the nature of a fugitive slave clause, whether to allow the abolition of the slave trade, and whether judges should be chosen by the legislature or executive.

By whom does Gibson think legislative abuses should be checked?

The people

What is stare decisis?

The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

Why is justiciability important?

The purpose of the Justiciability Doctrine is to encourage the separation of powers in our branches of government. The main question under the Justiciability Doctrine is: "What can the federal court hear?" and the answer to this question is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but has been created by the courts. Article III, Section 2 states that "the judicial Power shall extend to all Cases...[and] to controversies." The Supreme Court has inferred from this that a federal court will only hear "a case or controversy." Although this inference may be relatively obvious, it does help accomplish the goal of the separation of powers.

What is standing?

The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear "cases" arising under federal law and "controversies" involving certain types of parties. In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions. Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.

Is there any way to defeat a mootness claim?

There are three major exceptions to this mootness rule. These are cases of "voluntary cessation" on the part of the defendant; questions that are "capable of repetition, yet evading review"; and questions involving class actions where the named party ceases to represent the class.

Executive Branch - Checks on the Legislature

Veto power Vice President is President of the Senate Commander in chief of the military Recess appointments Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment Compensation cannot be diminished

Executive Branch - Checks on the Executive

Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties

What is the distinction between a discretionary and Ministerial Act (in terms of judicial review)?

What must the agency do versus what may the agency do

When was the Constitution written and ratified?

Written in 1787, ratified in 1788

Can state court hear federal questions?

Yes

Checks on the Legislature

because it is bicameral, has a degree of self-checking.

n order for an issue to be justiciable by a United States federal court, all of the following conditions must be met:

• The parties must not be seeking an advisory opinion. • There must be an actual controversy between the parties,[3] meaning that the parties can not agree to a lawsuit where all parties seek the same particular judgment from the court (known as a collusive suit or friendly suit); rather, the parties must each be seeking a different outcome. • The question must be neither unripe nor moot.[4] • An unripe question is one for which there is not yet at least a threatened injury to the plaintiff, or where all available judicial alternatives have not been exhausted. • A moot question is one for which the potential for an injury to occur has ceased to exist, or where the injury has been removed. However, if the issue is likely to reoccur, yet will continually become moot before any challenge can reach a court of competent jurisdiction ("capable of repetition, yet evading review"), courts may allow a case that is moot to be litigated.[5] • The suit must not be seeking judgment upon a political question.[6] • Political questions involve matters where there is: • "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" (meaning that the U.S. Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue); or • "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it." Political questions include such issues as whether the nation is 'at war' with another country, or whether the U.S. Senate has properly "tried" an impeached federal officer.