Presumption of constitutionality

Last updated

In constitutional law, the presumption of constitutionality is the legal principle that the judiciary should presume statutes enacted by the legislature to be constitutional, unless the law is clearly unconstitutional or a fundamental right is implicated. [1]

Contents

United States

In its strongest form—advocated most notably by James Bradley Thayer —the presumption of constitutionality gives Congress, rather than the courts, the primary responsibility for interpreting the Constitution. This view is in tension with the view of judicial review articulated in Marbury v. Madison , however. Thus, a less strong form of the presumption, repeatedly articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States, has become the dominant approach in American law: "[r]espect for a coordinate branch of Government forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality." [1] Constitutional law scholars Gillian E. Metzger and Trevor Morrison summarize this principle as follows: "although the Court's determination of constitutional invalidity always trumps the contrary judgment of a coordinate branch, the Court should not lightly arrive at such a determination." [1]

The presumption of constitutionality is linked to the doctrine of constitutional avoidance (the doctrine that courts will not make rulings on constitutional issues if the case can be resolved on a non-constitutional basis) and the rule that courts will not interpret an ambiguous statute to be unconstitutional in the absence of clear unconstitutionality. [1]

The Supreme Court has held that statutes implicating certain fundamental individual rights are not subject to the general presumption, and are evaluated instead through heightened levels of scrutiny. By contrast, economic legislation is subject to the presumption of constitutionality. [1]

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that courts should be able strike down a statute as unconstitutional only if there is an "irreconcilable variance" between the statute and the constitution. [2] Otherwise, a statute should be upheld. Likewise, at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, Virginia delegate George Mason said that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious, which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as Judges to give it a free course." [3]

Professor Randy Barnett from Georgetown Law argues that such a presumption is itself unconstitutional and suggests that government should be forced to prove that laws that violate liberty are necessary, replacing the presumption of constitutionality with what he calls the "presumption of liberty." [4]

Outside the United States

The presumption of constitutionality is part of the constitutional law of a number of nations outside the U.S., including the Republic of Ireland [5] and Singapore. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution Article of amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as part of the Bill of Rights, clarifying that unenumerated rights are not to be disparaged

The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.

Grandparent visitation is a legal right that grandparents in some jurisdictions may have to have court-ordered contact with their grandchildren.

Originalism United States Constitutional interpretation doctrine

In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five. This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of the current times, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document. Living constitutionalists sometimes argue that we cannot apply an original understanding of the Constitution because the document is too old and too cryptic.

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark US labor law case in the US Supreme Court, which held that limits to working time violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision has been effectively overturned.

Due Process Clause Clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

In United States constitutional law, a Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibits arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government, but requires any such denial to be made only as authorised by law.

<i>Restoring the Lost Constitution</i>

Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty is a 2003 book about the United States Constitution written by Randy Barnett, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center. In the book, Barnett outlines his theory of constitutional legitimacy, interpretation, and construction. He argues that the Constitution should be interpreted by its "original meaning", distinct from the Founding Fathers' original intent.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

In United States law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to regulation under the United States Bill of Rights, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating certain rights and freedoms.

Living Constitution U.S. Constitutional interpretation

In United States constitutional interpretation, the living Constitution or loose constructionism is the claim that the Constitution and other constitutions, holds a dynamic meaning, evolving and adapting to new circumstances, without being formally amended. A living Constitution is said to develop alongside the needs of a society, providing a more malleable tool for governments. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. The constitution referred to as the living law of the land as it is transformed according to necessities of the time and situation.

Federalist No. 78 Most-cited Federalist Paper; by Alexander Hamilton and about the Supreme Court

Federalist No. 78 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the seventy-eighth of The Federalist Papers. Like all of The Federalist papers, it was published under the pseudonym Publius.

In U.S. constitutional law, rational basis review is the normal standard of review that courts apply when considering constitutional questions, including due process or equal protection questions under the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Courts applying rational basis review seek to determine whether a law is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest, whether real or hypothetical. The higher levels of scrutiny are intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Heightened scrutiny is applied where a suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved, or a fundamental right is implicated.

The unitary executive theory is a theory of United States constitutional law which holds that the President of the United States possesses the power to control the entire executive branch. The doctrine is rooted in Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive power" of the United States in the President. Although that general principle is widely accepted, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine. It can be said that some favor a "strongly unitary" executive, while others favor a "weakly unitary" executive. The former group argue, for example, that Congress's power to interfere with intra-executive decision-making is limited, and that the President can control policy-making by all executive agencies within the limits set for those agencies by Congress. Still others agree that the Constitution requires a unitary executive, but believe this to be harmful, and propose its abolition by constitutional amendment. Plural executives exist in several states where, in contrast to the federal government, executive officers such as lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller, secretary of state, and others, are elected independently of the state's governor. The Executive Branch of the Texan state government is a textbook example of this type of executive structure. Another type of plural executive, used in Japan, Israel, and Sweden, though not in any US state, is one in which a collegial body composes the executive branch – however, that collegial body does not comprise multiple members elected in elections, but is rather more akin to the US Cabinet or UK Cabinet in formation and structure.

In U.S. constitutional law, a facial challenge is a challenge to a statute in which the plaintiff alleges that the legislation is always unconstitutional, and therefore void. It is contrasted with an as-applied challenge, which alleges that a particular application of a statute is unconstitutional.

Judicial review in the United States Ability of a court in the US to examine laws to determine if it contradicts current laws

In the United States, judicial review is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, citing a constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, struck down a Washington state law that allowed any third party to petition state courts for child visitation rights over parental objections.

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.

Several authors have put forth arguments concerning the legality of the war on drugs. In his essay The Drug War and the Constitution, libertarian philosopher Paul Hager makes the case that the War on Drugs in the United States is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the United States Constitution.

United States constitutional law is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Gillian E. Metzger & Trevor W. Morrison, "The Presumption of Constitutionality and the Individual Mandate" in The Health Care Case: The Supreme Court's Decision and Its Implications (eds. Nathaniel Persily, Gillian E. Metzger & Trevor W. Morrison: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 136.
  2. ↑ Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist #78 (1788-06-14).
  3. ↑ "Founders’ Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3", Records of the Federal Convention (1787-06-04).
  4. ↑ Barnett, Randy. Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (Princeton University Press 2004).
  5. ↑ Michael Forde & David Leonard, Constitutional Law of Ireland, section 2.17 (3d ed. 2013).
  6. ↑ Jack Tsen-Ta Lee, "Rethinking the Presumption of Constitutionality" in Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Theory and Practice (ed. Jaclyn L. Neo: Routledge, 2017).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.