Constitutional Law Outline
State Action requirement
The Constitution does not generally apply to private entities or actors; there must be a state law passed or action through officers or agents of the state, which is adverse to the rights of the citizen seeking our adjudication. The Civil Rights Cases. COMEDOWN: While the state action doctrine may have serious costs: absent statutory restrictions, private conduct can infringe or trample even the most basic of rights, this court likes the state action doctrine because it preserves a zone of private autonomy and advances federalism.
Justiciability
1. Prohibition against Advisory Opinions 2. Political Question Doctrine 3. Standing 4. Ripeness 5. Mootness 6. Striping Jurisdiction
The issue is whether THIS would is not justiciable because it represents an advisory opinion In Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms Congress attempted to overturn one of our decisions dismissing certain cases. We invalidated that law as an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers. The Constitution gives the federal judiciary the power not merely to rule on cases but to decide them and render dispositive judgments – If our opinions are not the final opinions on the matter, then they serve as an advisory opinion, and we prohibit those.
The issue of justiciability turns on whether this Court should restrain itself because adjudication involves a political question. As Justice Frankfurter observed in his dissent in Baker v. Carr, avoidance of political questions preserves this Court’s “fragile political legitimacy.”
Political Question: Separation of powers analysis
Federal - Foreign affairs:
It may be that discarding this case would allow the political branches -- branches with superior expertise in dealing with foreign affairs and nations -- to exercise superior judgment pursuant to their Article I and II powers. Indeed, it might be said that we lack judicially manageable standards because there is textual
The Constitution does not generally apply to private entities or actors; there must be a state law passed or action through officers or agents of the state, which is adverse to the rights of the citizen seeking our adjudication. The Civil Rights Cases. COMEDOWN: While the state action doctrine may have serious costs: absent statutory restrictions, private conduct can infringe or trample even the most basic of rights, this court likes the state action doctrine because it preserves a zone of private autonomy and advances federalism.
Justiciability
1. Prohibition against Advisory Opinions 2. Political Question Doctrine 3. Standing 4. Ripeness 5. Mootness 6. Striping Jurisdiction
The issue is whether THIS would is not justiciable because it represents an advisory opinion In Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms Congress attempted to overturn one of our decisions dismissing certain cases. We invalidated that law as an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers. The Constitution gives the federal judiciary the power not merely to rule on cases but to decide them and render dispositive judgments – If our opinions are not the final opinions on the matter, then they serve as an advisory opinion, and we prohibit those.
The issue of justiciability turns on whether this Court should restrain itself because adjudication involves a political question. As Justice Frankfurter observed in his dissent in Baker v. Carr, avoidance of political questions preserves this Court’s “fragile political legitimacy.”
Political Question: Separation of powers analysis
Federal - Foreign affairs:
It may be that discarding this case would allow the political branches -- branches with superior expertise in dealing with foreign affairs and nations -- to exercise superior judgment pursuant to their Article I and II powers. Indeed, it might be said that we lack judicially manageable standards because there is textual