CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Question On

This paper discusses the applicability of doctrinal constraints which might prevent the Supreme Court from hearing and deciding the two cited hypothetical cases.

Under Article III of the Constitution the Supreme Court and other federal courts have original jurisdiction and under sec. 25 of the Judiciary Act appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the constitutionality of federal statutes. Both the Sierra Club and Tree Huggers cases involve suits against the United States Government challenging the constitutionality of the "Pave the Wetlands Case." In the Sierra Club case, plaintiff alleges that Congress has exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause. In Tree Huggers, the claim is that Congress has exceeded its taxing and spending powers. Since constitutional issues are central to these cases, the cognizant federal district court has the authority (jurisdiction) to hear and decide these cases and the Supreme Court to hear and decide appeals of lower courts' decisions in these cases. In addition, since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court has had the authority to declare federal statutes unconstitutional through its power of judicial review and to enforce its rulings through injunctions.

Under Article III, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, can only decide "cases" and "controversies." Federal courts will not, however, issue advisory opinions or perform legislative functions, such

. . .
itutional interference with their ability to enjoy nature. The Sierra Club is unlikely to be able to prove any concrete injury to itself although it might be able to assert a nexus between the interests of its members as environmentalists and the damage to the environment. All this is very fragile inasmuch as the claim that Congress exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause is itself questionable. Political Questions As Justice David Souter said in his concurring opinion in Nixon v. United States (1993) "the political question doctrine is 'essentially a function of the separation of powers,' existing to restrain courts 'from inappropriate interference in the business of other branches of government" (Text, p. 111). When that possibility was presented by a suit, the traditional view of the court, see Luther v. Borden (1849), was that the action was non-justiciable. In a case where it decided that democracy itself was threatened, Baker v. Carr (1962), the Court intervened to find unconstitutional a particular legislative apportionment of voting districts scheme. These hypothetical cases do not, however, involve political questions. The Court reviews every term the constitutionality of federal statutes, such as the wetland
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Tree Huggers, Sierra Club, Supreme Court, Munn Illinois, Process Clause, Baker Carr, Commerce Clause, Justice Holmes, Carr Text, Social Darwinism, commerce clause, due process, supreme court, sierra club, substantive due process, congress exceeded, standing sue, tree huggers, constitutionality federal, private property, economic substantive due, federal courts, due process clause, congress exceeded powers, private property rights,
Approximate Word count = 2229
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)