The Rule of Law- Law in a Changing Communication Environment
-Provides a relatively clear, neutral, and stable mechanism for resolving conflicts
-Laws come from 6 sources: constitutions (at state and federal levels), congress, legislatures, equity, and common law.
-Executives issue orders that have the force of law
-Through judicial review, courts have the power to to interpret constitutions and to determine when government violates the constitution
-trial courts review the facts and are the entry level for most legal disputes
-Appeals courts review the legal reasoning and process of the lower courts
-Majority opinions of a court of appeals establish binding precedent within the courts jurisdiction
- Criminal vs Civil lawsuits; In Criminal cases the government brings an action against an individual for violating a criminal statute. In Civil lawsuits, a private party initiates the process by filing a complaint. Court decisions may be appealed.
Key Terms:
Overbroad Law- A principle that directs courts to find laws unconstitutional if they restrict more legal activity than necessary
Equity Law- Law created by judges to decide cases based on fairness and ethics and also to determine the proper remedy
Facial Challenge- A legal argument that the challenged law or policy is unconstitutional in every application; there are no situations in which the law can be interpreted to be constitutional
En Banc- Literally "on the bench" but now meaning "in full court". The judges of a circuit of appeals will sit en banc to decide important or controversial cases
Moot- Term used to describe a case in which the issues presented are no longer "live" or in which the matter in dispute has already been resolved; a case is not moot if it is not susceptible to repetition but evades review
Per Curiam Opinion- An unsigned opinion by the court as a whole
Voire Dire- literally to "speak the truth"; the questioning of prospective jurors to assess their sustainability
Important Cases:
Marbury V Madison- Determined whether the Supreme Court has the power to review acts of congress and declare them void if they violate the constitution; held the provision of the judiciary act unconstitutional and declared the writ of mandamus void.
Relevant Doctrine:
N/A
Current Issues:
Today we face a situation with many echoes from that earlier time. Trump, like Clinton before him, has sought to erect executive privilege and other claims of immunity from inquiry as a barrier to oversight of his own conduct. Trump’s actions do not occur in a vacuum, nor is the public required to ignore the context in which they arise. The president has publicly declared his intent to resist all congressional inquiries through a variety of means. By one count, he is currently defying as many as 20 different efforts to examine his conduct. Not all of these involve executive privilege. And perhaps some of these invocations of privilege and refusals to assist congressional investigation are well justified. But the pattern of resistance is such that we should evaluate the president’s actions against that background and, rightly, conclude that much of the president’s resistance is undertaken in bad faith in an attempt to avoid, or at a minimum delay, scrutiny of his conduct.
How often do conflicts of interest between congress and the constitution occur?
No comments:
Post a Comment