Presentation on theme: "Bellringer Do you believe the U.S. Constitution should be followed word for word? OR Do you think that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted to."— Presentation transcript:
1BellringerDo you believe the U.S. Constitution should be followed word for word?ORDo you think that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted to fit today’s society?Please put your reference page in the bin!
3Today we will … Discuss how our judiciary was designed and why. ObjectivesAgendaDiscuss how our judiciary was designed and why.Explain judicial review and analyze its origin in this country to Marbury v. Madison.Compare/contrast original intent & evolving constitution interpretations of the Constitution.Federalist No. 78 reading groupsMarbury v Madison review articleCompeting Views on Interpretation pair/shareClosure
4Federalist #78 Ex post facto, bills of attainder, etc. Why do we need a judiciary?Why should it be independent?Reading Groups:Preview questions 1-3.Read Federalist #78 together.Ex post facto, bills of attainder, etc.Discuss & answer the questions together.
5Federalist #78 – Hamilton said … Judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them”- still true?The Judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse” -still true?The Judiciary “has neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment”- still true?Must be independent of the EXEC & LEG, represents a Limited Constitution – still true?Justices must have permanent tenure with good behavior to resist encroachment by the LEG- still true?
6Check for Understanding What does this political cartoon say about the relationship between the judicial, executive and legislative branches?What would Madison say about this cartoon?
8Legal Model= Slot Machine Model The FactsThe Law - precedents, constitutions, laws, & regulationsThe Independent Judge or Decision Maker - a judge must be judicially independent from influence from either party & independent from influence from the political branches.A court must be independent to make unpopular decisions that protect the civil liberties of minorities (anti-majoritarian).The Holding: The components result in the proper decision being made every time.Your payoff NEVER depends upon who you are or the political environment you operate in.The judgment is a simple decision for one of the two parties in the suit.
9Marbury V. MadisonThe Facts: William Marbury is appointed a federal magistrate and confirmed by the Senate. Before his commission is delivered by the Secretary of State, a new presidential administration takes over power. James Madison, the new secretary of state, refuses to deliver the commission. Marbury files suit.
10Marbury V. MadisonThe Law: Marbury sues for a writ of mandamus (an order compelling an action by a government official) under the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Original jurisdiction simply means that the suit is filed in the Supreme Court and tried there, as compared with appellate jurisdiction, in which the case is tried in a lower court (district court), and the Supreme Court reviews the earlier decision.
11Marbury V. MadisonHolding: The writ of mandamus is denied. Marbury does not receive his commission.Legal Reasoning: The portion of the Judiciary Act of that grants original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction only in certain specified cases. Congress cannot expand the grant of original jurisdiction as set out in the Constitution. Hence, that portion of the Act is unconstitutional. It is solely the province of the judiciary to decide what the Constitution says.
12Judicial ReviewJudicial Review: The right of the federal courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws, executive acts (acts of the President & bureaucratic laws), and state laws.Marbury v MadisonFederalist 78, “The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature”“No Legislative Act… contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm… that the servant is above his master, that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves”
13Check for understanding Where is judicial review mentioned in the Constitution?What does this say about the founders expectations of the federal courts?
142. Reading: Original Intent or Evolving Constitution Original Intent - Strict Constructionist/ConservativeEvolving Constitution – Loose/Activist/LiberalStep 1:With your partner read the article and take notes on either Original Intent OR Evolving Constitution viewpoint (you will be assigned)Draw a cartoon that illustrates your viewpoint of the Constitution or the court
152. Reading: Original Intent or Evolving Constitution Original Intent - Strict Constructionist/ConservativeEvolving Constitution – Loose/Activist/LiberalStep 2:Share your viewpoints & cartoon with a pair that represents the opposing sideMake a T-Chart that compares the 2 viewpointsDiscuss which side you most agree with.
16CLOSUREJudiciaryHomeworkHow does judicial review empower the Supreme Court within the system of checks and balances?How might judicial activism influence decisions made by individual judges when deciding cases heard by the court?Judiciary A Questions #s 3-6Make the Supreme Court Justices chartIt gives the Court the power to overturn laws passed by Congress/legislative branch or actions taken by the president/executive branch. • It gives the Court the power to limit actions taken by Congress/legislative branch or the president/executive branch.
173. The doctrine of original intent holds that (A) Supreme Court justices must emphasize independent and original thinking in considering constitutional matters(B) the meaning of the Constitution depends on the intention of the framers(C) cases selected for review by the Supreme Court must address an original and new concern not previously addressed by the Court(D) Supreme Court justices should avoid bias by documenting their original impressions of a case(E) the Supreme Court should review all treaties that alter previously established foreign policy.