Constitutional Law

By BarCharts, Inc.

Our company was founded on law guides created by the owner, designed to understand the significance of details within the larger scheme of the law, as a daily refresher, and to review before the Bar Exam. Twenty five years later we keep those guides up to date for students, paralegals and practicing lawyers to have the most handy legal reference to the most important points of the law possible in 6 laminated pages.

Suggested uses:
• To understand proportion and relevance within Constitutional Law
• Quick and constant refreshers before classes and exams
• As the last review before taking the Bar Exam[DESCRIPTION][/DESCR

• Language: English
• Publisher: BarCharts, Inc.
• Release date: May 1, 2018
• ISBN: 9781423237525

Book preview

EXECUTIVE: ARTICLE II

PRESIDENTIAL POWERS

Generally broader in foreign arena than in domestic affairs

FOREIGN

Treaty With advice and consent of Senate Equal supremacy with acts of Congress Executive agreements: No consent of Senate yet still supreme over state law

COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF ARMED FORCES

War power to commit troops abroad without congressional approval when:

Maintaining neutrality

Protecting Americans abroad

Ensuring national security

War Powers Resolution of 1973: Limitation on presidential powers

Congress declares wars, statutory authorization, or national emergency

Power to commit troops is limited

Strongest if Congress approves

Not as strong if Congress silent

Weakest if Congress disapproves

Power to carry out law, not to make law

Executive order to seize steel mills struck down as unconstitutional exercise of congressional lawmaking power [Youngstown v. Sawyer]

War crimes tribunal at Guantanamo Bay established by the administration violates Uniform Code of Military Justice [Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]

DOMESTIC

Pardons (federal crimes only)

Power to impose less severe punishment but may not aggravate punishment

Full pardon restores innocence and all civil rights

Veto

Can be overridden by ⅔ vote in each house; one-house veto is unconstitutional [INS v. Chadha]

Pocket veto cannot be overridden; POTUS does not sign in time

Line-item veto gives president power to cut government spending by penciling out individual programs

Power available prior to bill becoming law [Clinton v. City of New York]

Appointment of federal officers

Top-level officers, such as Supreme Court justices and cabinet members, with advice and consent of Senate

Inferior officers and employees generally appointed without restraint

Appointment of special prosecutors may be granted to judiciary [Morrison v. Olson]

Appellate military judges are inferior officers who must be appointed; where not properly appointed, actions are deemed invalid [Ryder v. U.S.] and are validly appointed by authority of Secretary of Department of Transportation [Edmond v. U.S.]

IMPEACHMENT

IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT

House: Majority to invoke charges

Senate: ⅔ to convict

Grounds: Treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors

IMPEACHMENT OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS

Congress has sole power [Judge W. L. Nixon v. U.S.]

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

In addition to impeachment; does not constitute double jeopardy

IMMUNITY

CIVIL LIABILITY

Absolute immunity of president with regard to official acts but not unofficial conduct [Clinton v. Jones]; grand jury witnesses, like trial witnesses, have absolute immunity for their testimony [Rehberg v. Paulk]

Qualified immunity of all government officials, unless actions violate clearly established law [Harlow v. Fitzgerald]

No protection for making false statements [Kalina v. Fletcher; see alsoLaChance v. Erickson]

No qualified immunity for privately employed prison guards [Richardson v. McKnight], but guard cannot be sued where conduct falls within scope of traditional state tort law [Minneci v. Pollard]

Ex-spies can’t sue CIA for breach of contract claims [Tenet v. Doe]

Post-9/11 detainee failed to show purposeful racial and religious discrimination to overcome qualified immunity [Ashcroft v. Iqbal]

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

Qualified privilege, with regard to disclosure of confidential information

Claim of immunity subordinate to need for specific evidence in criminal trial [U.S. v. Nixon]

State does not waive sovereign immunity under RLUIPA by accepting federal funds [Sossamon v. TX]

JUDICIARY: ARTICLE III

CASE & CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT (JUSTICIABILITY)

• NONJUSTICIABLE (NOT US)

Political question

Foreign affairs

Guaranty Clause of Art. IV, in which the Supreme Court declines to address the issue of whether a state is providing a