15.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SIMPLIFIED QUESTIONS WITH CERTIFIED
ANSWERS
Modalities of interpretation - correct answer textual - words of the con
Structural - how the con. Fits together (separation of powers)
Historical - original intent of the frmaers. (original meaning and traditions) (interpreted in
accordance with history or background)
Doctrine/precedent - what the court's have generally decided
Ethical/national values/moral - moral values
Prudential/practical/pragmatic- what are the consequences of the ruling? (pragmatic
consequences)
Three functions of the constitution - correct answer sets up limited enumerated powers
Article 1: sets out congress and grants them power to legislate and make laws.
Article 2: executive branch, president, qualifications: commander in chief, veto, appointments,
treaties etc.
Article 3: judicial branch, creates the sc, defines sc jurisdiction
Marbury v. Madison - correct answer first decision to declare a federal law unconstitutional
Established principle of judicial review - ability of courts to engage in review of legislative and
executive actions
Sc has the power to review the constitutionality of the other branches
The judiciary can compel the executive what to do if it concerns an administrative duty that the
prez. Owes
Constitution is regulatory and limits congress
Constitution is regulatory and imposes meaningful limits on the government
,Article 3 limits judicial power - court cannot exceed the constraints of article 3 even if congress
says it can
Judiciary can compel executive action of those things that are ministerial (when there is a duty
owed to some person)
Holding: marbury loses out b/c scotus said they couldn't rule on the case b/c they only had
appellate jurisdiction and the case should have been in the lower court first. However section
13 was unconstitutional b/c he should not have been allowed to file directly in the sc.
Reasoning: appointments never got delivered.
Marshall makes an ethical argument
Marshall's statement in marbury v. Madison that it is "emphatically the province and duty of
the judicial department to say what the law is," is perhaps the most oft-cited passage in the
opinion.
Martin v. Hunter's lessee - correct answer the supreme court has the power to review state
court decisions.
Article 3 says the judicial power shall be vested into one supreme court and judicial power
includes reviewing determinations of federal questions
Sct. Makes a textual argument (power vested in one supreme court) must hear all cases
Theorizes that s. Ct can hear cases from state court
Supremacy clause - correct answer constitution is the supreme law of the land
,Uniformity of decision - correct answer needs to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of
federal law
For a state decision to go to the sc it must be a federal issue
Federal issue - correct answer statute, treaty, compact between states, administrative
regulation, constitutional issue etc.
Sc can't review state court decision concerning state law
Adequate state grounds - correct answer if there are adequate and independent state grounds
for a decision the sc cannot review it
State court could have been totally wrong on the federal issue
4 corners - not adequate and independent if they didn't in the four corners of the document
specifically state that they weren't relying on state law
Virginia state cort. Ruled on 2 state grounds (fed treaty does not apply, you didn't raise the
federal treaty properly
Adequate means the state law part would sustain judgment.
Independent - want a plain statement of independence if there is some plain meaning
Justiciability doctrine - correct answer places a limit on the federal judicial power
Determines which matters the fc can hear and which must be dismissed
Prohibition against advisory opinions, standing, ripeness, mootness, and pq doctrine
, Two limitations of the justic. Doctrine - correct answer must be an actual case or controversy
(must be true lawsuits between individuals with a personal stake in the outcome) to achieve
some personal right or remedy
Prudential - policy goes against judicial review sometimes
Prohibition against advisory opinions - correct answer actual dispute between litigants - cannot
be a request for advice
Substantial likelihood judgment will have some effect in favor of p
The fc cannot issue advisory opinions
Advis. Opinion: lawsuit that seeks the court's opinion on a question and asks them to render a
declaratory judgment (essentially a request for advice)
Arguments against advisory opnions:
Textual - case and controversies
Structural - separation of powers
Precedent/history
Prudential
Waste of courts time
If the sc made advisory opinions it would erode their authority. They would be making laws
instead of congress. It would violate the separation of powers.
ANSWERS
Modalities of interpretation - correct answer textual - words of the con
Structural - how the con. Fits together (separation of powers)
Historical - original intent of the frmaers. (original meaning and traditions) (interpreted in
accordance with history or background)
Doctrine/precedent - what the court's have generally decided
Ethical/national values/moral - moral values
Prudential/practical/pragmatic- what are the consequences of the ruling? (pragmatic
consequences)
Three functions of the constitution - correct answer sets up limited enumerated powers
Article 1: sets out congress and grants them power to legislate and make laws.
Article 2: executive branch, president, qualifications: commander in chief, veto, appointments,
treaties etc.
Article 3: judicial branch, creates the sc, defines sc jurisdiction
Marbury v. Madison - correct answer first decision to declare a federal law unconstitutional
Established principle of judicial review - ability of courts to engage in review of legislative and
executive actions
Sc has the power to review the constitutionality of the other branches
The judiciary can compel the executive what to do if it concerns an administrative duty that the
prez. Owes
Constitution is regulatory and limits congress
Constitution is regulatory and imposes meaningful limits on the government
,Article 3 limits judicial power - court cannot exceed the constraints of article 3 even if congress
says it can
Judiciary can compel executive action of those things that are ministerial (when there is a duty
owed to some person)
Holding: marbury loses out b/c scotus said they couldn't rule on the case b/c they only had
appellate jurisdiction and the case should have been in the lower court first. However section
13 was unconstitutional b/c he should not have been allowed to file directly in the sc.
Reasoning: appointments never got delivered.
Marshall makes an ethical argument
Marshall's statement in marbury v. Madison that it is "emphatically the province and duty of
the judicial department to say what the law is," is perhaps the most oft-cited passage in the
opinion.
Martin v. Hunter's lessee - correct answer the supreme court has the power to review state
court decisions.
Article 3 says the judicial power shall be vested into one supreme court and judicial power
includes reviewing determinations of federal questions
Sct. Makes a textual argument (power vested in one supreme court) must hear all cases
Theorizes that s. Ct can hear cases from state court
Supremacy clause - correct answer constitution is the supreme law of the land
,Uniformity of decision - correct answer needs to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of
federal law
For a state decision to go to the sc it must be a federal issue
Federal issue - correct answer statute, treaty, compact between states, administrative
regulation, constitutional issue etc.
Sc can't review state court decision concerning state law
Adequate state grounds - correct answer if there are adequate and independent state grounds
for a decision the sc cannot review it
State court could have been totally wrong on the federal issue
4 corners - not adequate and independent if they didn't in the four corners of the document
specifically state that they weren't relying on state law
Virginia state cort. Ruled on 2 state grounds (fed treaty does not apply, you didn't raise the
federal treaty properly
Adequate means the state law part would sustain judgment.
Independent - want a plain statement of independence if there is some plain meaning
Justiciability doctrine - correct answer places a limit on the federal judicial power
Determines which matters the fc can hear and which must be dismissed
Prohibition against advisory opinions, standing, ripeness, mootness, and pq doctrine
, Two limitations of the justic. Doctrine - correct answer must be an actual case or controversy
(must be true lawsuits between individuals with a personal stake in the outcome) to achieve
some personal right or remedy
Prudential - policy goes against judicial review sometimes
Prohibition against advisory opinions - correct answer actual dispute between litigants - cannot
be a request for advice
Substantial likelihood judgment will have some effect in favor of p
The fc cannot issue advisory opinions
Advis. Opinion: lawsuit that seeks the court's opinion on a question and asks them to render a
declaratory judgment (essentially a request for advice)
Arguments against advisory opnions:
Textual - case and controversies
Structural - separation of powers
Precedent/history
Prudential
Waste of courts time
If the sc made advisory opinions it would erode their authority. They would be making laws
instead of congress. It would violate the separation of powers.
