Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
ChampagneConLawExam1
| Case | Precedent |
|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison | Judicial Review can declare laws unconstitutional |
| Stuart v. Laird | Notably did not use Judicial Review for political reasons |
| Eakin v. Raub | Advocates Legislative review, saying Judicial review upsets the balanced powers |
| Cooper v. Aaron | States must follow the rulings of the supreme court |
| Ex Parte McCardle | Congress can change the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over things not expressly granted in the Constitution |
| Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife | Plaintiffs must have standing (in this case, real and legitimate harm). Threshold considerations |
| Luther v. Borden | Court does not decide political questions |
| Baker v. Carr | Justiciable Questions |
| Nixon v. US | Coordinate Branch's powers may not be reviewed |
| DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services | Constitution is a Negative document |
| McCulloch v. Maryland | Congress has implied powers, Supremacy clause |
| Powell v. McCormack | Congress must swear in all elected officials |
| US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thorton | States cannot impose stricter qualification on federal office than the constitution |
| McGrain v. Dougherty | Congress has the implied power to bring forth witnesses |
| Watkins v. US | Congress's power to call witnesses is not unlimited, and cannot be used for public shaming. |
| Schecter Poultry v. US | The federal gov't does not have the power to regulate intra-state commerce |
| Immigration and Naturalization Services v. Chadha | One-house legislative veto is unconstitutional: violates bicameralism and the presentment clause |
| Clinton v. City of New York | Line-Item veto is unconstitutional. |
| Myers v. US | President can remove executive appointees without the advice and consent of the Senate. Take Care clause. |
| Morrison v. Olson | Presidents can appoint independent counsel. Take Care clause |
| US v. Nixon | Executive privilege does not apply to a president's crimes |
| Clinton v. Jones | Presidents have no immunity from civil suit for matters outside the presidency |
| In re Negle | Executive can appoint US Marshalls to protect gov't officials. Take Care clause |
| Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer | President cannot seize domestic enterprise for use in foreign wars |
| The Prize Cases | President can seize domestic property in times of understood domestic war |
| The War Powers Resolution | President has 60+30 days of engagement w/o Congressional consent, w/ a 48 hour informant period |
| US v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp | Executive branch has the primary power over foreign affairs |
| Ex Parte Milligan | Open Courts rule. US Citizens must be tried for civil crimes in civil courts if those courts are open and functioning |
| Korematsu v. US | National security comes before personal liberty |
| Ex Parte Quirin | Foreign enemies can be tried in military tribunal: have no right to a trial by jury in civil court |
Created by:
Curtlyn
Popular Law sets