U.S. constitutional law: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
SCOTUS most relies on the doctrine of ''[[stare decisis]]'' or precedent in earlier Supreme Court and other U.S. court rulings. It will also consider, as informative sources, the decisions of state courts, of treaties and international bodies, and foreign courts, as well as works of legal scholarship. | SCOTUS most relies on the doctrine of ''[[stare decisis]]'' or precedent in earlier Supreme Court and other U.S. court rulings. It will also consider, as informative sources, the decisions of state courts, of treaties and international bodies, and foreign courts, as well as works of legal scholarship. | ||
==Framers' intent== | ==Framers' intent== | ||
In judicial review, both the Framers' "original intent" and "original understanding", are considered. Original intent comes from writings of the Framers, such as the [[Federalist Papers]]. <ref>{{citation | In judicial review, both the Framers' "original intent" and "original understanding", are considered. Original intent comes from writings of the Framers, such as the [[Federalist Papers]]. Original understanding comes from the deliberations of the state conventions that ratified the Constitution.<ref name=PWP>{{citation | ||
| author = John Yoo | publisher = University of Chicago | year = 2005 | |||
| title = The Powers of War and Peace: the Constitution and Foreign Affairs since 9/11 | |||
| isbn = 0226960315}}, p. 28</ref> | |||
Not all legal authorities agree that the Framers intended their intent to be considered.<ref>{{citation | |||
| year = 1984 | publisher = Duke Law Faculty Scholarship | id = Paper 441. | | year = 1984 | publisher = Duke Law Faculty Scholarship | id = Paper 441. | ||
| url = http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/441 | | url = http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/441 | ||
| author = H. Jefferson Powell | | author = H. Jefferson Powell | ||
| title = The Original Understanding of Original Intent}}</ref> | | title = The Original Understanding of Original Intent}}</ref> | ||
<ref>{{citation | <ref>{{citation | ||
| title = The original intention of original understanding | | title = The original intention of original understanding | ||
Revision as of 18:06, 20 February 2010
U.S. constitutional law "deals with the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution."[1] While the U.S. Constitution is widely regarded as a document of much wisdoms, its Framers simply could not foresee all the contingencies over more than two centuries.
In practice, the most important interpreter of constitutional law is the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Its role in judicial review is not explicit in the Constitution, but was established by the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case.
SCOTUS most relies on the doctrine of stare decisis or precedent in earlier Supreme Court and other U.S. court rulings. It will also consider, as informative sources, the decisions of state courts, of treaties and international bodies, and foreign courts, as well as works of legal scholarship.
Framers' intent
In judicial review, both the Framers' "original intent" and "original understanding", are considered. Original intent comes from writings of the Framers, such as the Federalist Papers. Original understanding comes from the deliberations of the state conventions that ratified the Constitution.[2]
Not all legal authorities agree that the Framers intended their intent to be considered.[3] [4]
Supremacy Clause
Based on Article VI of the Constitution, SCOTUS ruled, in the 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland,, that "state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties." [1]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Constitutional law: an overview, Legal Information Institute, Cornell University
- ↑ John Yoo (2005), The Powers of War and Peace: the Constitution and Foreign Affairs since 9/11, University of Chicago, ISBN 0226960315, p. 28
- ↑ H. Jefferson Powell (1984), The Original Understanding of Original Intent, Duke Law Faculty Scholarship, Paper 441.
- ↑ Jack Rakove (Summer 1996), "The original intention of original understanding", Constitutional Commentary