Constitutional law of the United States


The constitutional law of the United States is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The subject concerns the scope of power of the United States federal government compared to the individual states and the fundamental rights of individuals. The ultimate authority upon the interpretation of the Constitution and the constitutionality of statutes, state and federal, lies with the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court

Judicial review

Early in its history, in Marbury v. Madison and Fletcher v. Peck, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the judicial power granted to it by Article III of the United States Constitution included the power of judicial review, to consider challenges to the constitutionality of a State or Federal law. The holding in these cases empowered the Supreme Court to strike down enacted laws that were contrary to the Constitution. In this role, for example, the Court has struck down state laws for failing to conform to the Contract Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Scope and effect

The Supreme Court's interpretations of constitutional law are binding on the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, on the lower courts in the federal system, and on all state courts. This system of binding interpretations or precedents evolved from the common law system, where courts are bound by their own prior decisions and by the decisions of higher courts. Neither English common law courts nor continental civil law courts had the power to declare legislation unconstitutional, the United States Supreme Court has long held the power to declare federal or state legislation unconstitutional.

Justiciability

Federal courts consider other doctrines before allowing a lawsuit to go forward:
  • Actual dispute – the lawsuit concerns a "case or controversy" under the meaning of Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution
  • Standing – the party bringing the suit must have a particularized and concrete injury, a causal connection between the complained-of conduct and that injury, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision will redress the injury
  • Ripeness – a party will lack standing where his/her case raises abstract, hypothetical or conjectural questions.
  • Mootness – a party is seeking redress over a case that no longer has a basis for dispute, though there are limited exceptions
  • Political question – the issues raised in the suit are unreviewable because the Constitution relegates it to another branch of government.
The Supreme Court prohibits itself from issuing advisory opinions where there is no actual case or controversy before them..

Differing views on the role of the Court

There are a number of ways that commentators and Justices of the Supreme Court have defined the Court's role, and its jurisprudential method:
  • Originalism is a family of similar theories that hold that the Constitution has a fixed meaning from an authority contemporaneous with its ratification, and that it should be construed in light of that authority. Generally, originalism stands for the principle that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its meaning in the late 18th century. Prominent adherents include Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
  • Purposivism is "an approach that places more emphasis on statutory purpose and congressional intent," practiced notably by Stephen Breyer.
  • Judicial restraint is the idea that the Supreme Court should decide as few cases as possible and on the narrowest possible grounds in order to allow the democratic process to play out without judicial interference wherever possible. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Felix Frankfurter are often associated this approach.
  • Instrumentalism is the approach that society and the law complement and ought to reflect each other, generally leading to the law shifting with public opinion. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a notable jurist who utilized this philosophy.

    Federalism

Political power in the United States is divided under a scheme of federalism, in which multiple units of government exercise jurisdiction over the same geographical area. This manner of distributing political power was a compromise between two extremes feared by the framers: the efficiency of tyranny when power is overly centralized, as under the British monarchy, on one end of the spectrum, and the ineffectiveness of an overly decentralized government, as under the Articles of Confederation, on the other. Supporters of federalism believed that a division of power between federal and state governments would decrease the likelihood of tyranny. The framers felt the states were in the best position to restrict such movements. Another value of federalism is that the states are much closer to the people, so that they can be more responsive to and effective in resolving the localized concerns of the public. Federalism represented a middle ground by dividing power between the governments of the individual states and the centralized federal government.
The Constitution assigns the powers of the federal government to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and the Tenth Amendment provides that those powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved by the States or the people.

Legislative powers committed to the U.S. Congress (Article I)

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution contains the enumerated powers of Congress.

The federal commerce power

Congress is authorized to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
Important early cases include United States v. E.C. Knight Co. which held that the federal Sherman Act could not be applied to manufacture of sugar because the authority of the commerce clause was insufficient to affect the manufacture of goods. Further limitation continued in cases such as Schecter Poultry v. United States, in which the Court invalidated a federal statute seeking to enforce labor conditions at a slaughterhouse for chickens; the Court held the relationship between labor conditions and chickens was too indirect – that chickens come to rest upon arrival at the slaughterhouse, so whatever happened in the slaughterhouse was not Congress's business.
In Stafford v. Wallace, the Court articulated a "stream of commerce" test; if a transaction affected commerce in a transition that was local, but supported interstate commerce, then Congress could regulate those transactions under the commerce clause. The judgement in Stafford began the Court's increased deference to Congress in matters regarding interpretation of its powers. Further expansion of Congress's commerce clause power continued with Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 involving a farmer's refusal to comply with a federal quota. Wickard articulated the aggregation principle: that effects of the entire class matter rather than composites of the class, so even if the single farmer did not substantially affect interstate commerce, all farmers – the class to which he belonged – do – they compete with the national market. This case largely ended challenges to laws based upon the extent of power bestowed by the commerce clause until United States v. Lopez.
In 1995, the Court held that the Crime Control Act of 1990, which the Gun-Free School Zones Act was a part of, was unconstitutional because it was an "impermissible extension of congressional power under the Commerce Clause." Lopez remains the central case regarding the authority of Congress under the commerce power.

The spending power

Clause 1 of Article I, § 8 grants Congress the power to levy and collect taxes provided that they are uniform across the nation. Notable cases and challenges to the power of Congress include McCray v. United States, Flint v. Stone Tracy & Co., and Printz v. United States.

Other enumerated powers

Other federal powers specifically enumerated by Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution are:
  • to coin money, and to regulate its value;
  • to establish laws governing bankruptcy;
  • to establish post offices ;
  • to control the issuance of copyrights and patents ;
  • to govern the District of Columbia and all other federal properties;
  • to control naturalization of aliens;
  • to enforce "by appropriate legislation" the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution ;
  • to propose, by a two-thirds vote, constitutional amendments for ratification by three-fourths of the states pursuant to the terms of Article V.
Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives have immunity for all statements made on the floor of Congress except in cases of "Treason, Felony, or Breach of the Peace ".

Executive powers committed to the President of the United States (Article II)

Article II, Section 1, vests the executive power in the President of the United States of America. Unlike the commitment of authority in Article I, which refers Congress only specifically enumerated powers "herein granted" and such powers as may be necessary and proper to carry out the same, Article II is all-inclusive in its commitment of the executive power in a President of the United States of America.
Enumerated powers of the President Several important powers are expressly committed to the President under Article II, Section 2. These include:
  • Commander-in-chief of the armed forces;
  • Power to pardon offenses against the United States;
  • Power to make treaties ; and the
  • Power to appoint judges, ambassadors, and other officers of the United States ;
The Presentment Clause grants the president the power to veto Congressional legislation and Congress the power to override a presidential veto with a supermajority. Under the clause, once a bill has been passed in identical form by both houses of Congress, with a two thirds majority in both houses, it becomes federal law.
The president approves or rejects a bill in its entirety; he is not permitted to veto specific provisions. In 1996, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which gave the president the power to veto individual items of budgeted expenditures in appropriations bills. The Supreme Court subsequently declared the line-item veto unconstitutional as a violation of the Presentment Clause in Clinton v. City of New York,. The Court held that the Constitution's silence on the subject of such a procedure as "an express prohibition," and that statutes may only be enacted "in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure", and that a bill must be approved or rejected by the president in its entirety.