 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
Constitutional LawyerLawyerFinder.com is a FREE consumer service. We are NOT a law firm. We assist consumers in locating Constitutional Lawyers and law firms in specific regions. We provide comprehensive law firm profiles so that you can review, screen and learn more about our members prior to contacting an attorney. In many cases our Constitutional Lawyer members provide useful articles and example cases to aid you in intelligently choosing the most appropriate legal representation for your unique situation. To locate a Constitutional Lawyer, simply choose a state from the form to the top right or choose the link from the left hand menu of this page. In the United States, constitutional law generally refers to the provisions of the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Early in its history, the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) assumed the power—called judicial review—to review federal laws passed by Congress and enforced by the executive branch and to decide whether those laws (or their application) conformed to the Constitution. The court later extended this review to relevant state laws—in order, for example, to determine whether a state law conformed to the Contract Clause or (after the Fourteenth Amendment was added) whether a state had violated the Equal Protection Clause. When exercising judicial review, the Court will often seek to avoid conflict with the Congress or President by basing its decision on non-constitutional reasons. However, the Court's assumed power to invalidate federal and state laws or actions has no counterpart in common or civil law, and has no basis in the United States Constitution. The organic law of the United States derives in great part from that of Britain which has vested the power of judicial review in the people since 1215, when the Magna Carta was signed by King John Lackland. Article 39 establishes the concept of the jury as the regulating body in legal matters, rather than the government itself. However, whilst American constitutional law derives some legitimacy from previous UK and/or world doctrines, it is still worth noting the awesome power granted to the Court by itself in its ruling in Marbury v. Madison; it is from this ruling that later applications of judicial review were justified on, and its influence on USA governmental affairs can not be underestimated. 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 precedent binds lower courts. However, neither English common law courts or continental civil law courts generally have the power to declare legislation illegal or unconstitutional but only the power to interpret the law itself. There are a number of related doctrines that, once raised by a party, the Supreme Court will examine before deciding on a constitutional question. Perhaps the most important of these is whether the court can avoid the constitutional question by basing its decision on a nonconstitutional reason. For example, if a federal statute is on shaky constitutional footing but applied to the challenging party in a manner that does not implicate the basis for the constitutional claim, the Supreme Court will not decide whether the statute might be unconstitutional if it were applied differently. Or, when reviewing a decision of a state's highest court, the Court may avoid constitutional decision making if the state court's decision is based on an independent and adequate state law grounds. That is, even if the state court decided the question of state law incorrectly, the Supreme Court will not review that decision for its correctness. There are also many related doctrines that federal courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular will consider before allowing a lawsuit to go forward. These implicate whether there is a case and controversy before the court and include proper standing of the parties, whether the case raises abstract, hypothetical or conjectural questions, whether the case is ripe for decision, or moot and thus past decision, or whether the question presented is a political question, unreviewable by the Court because the Constitution relegates it to another branch of government. These doctrines, because they apply to all federal cases whether of constitutional dimension or not, are discussed separately in the article on federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, there are a number of ways that commentators and Justices of the Supreme Court have defined the Court's role, and its jurisprudential method. For example, current Associate Justice Antonin Scalia is an originalist, in that he believes that the Constitution is largely a fixed document, and that it should be interpreted as the Founding Fathers would have wished. Unless there is a historic and/or extremely pressing reason to interpret the Constitution differently, originalists vote as they think the Constitution as it was written in the late 18th Century would dictate. Other approaches are possible, though. Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter was a leading proponent of so-called judicial restraint, in that he believed that the Supreme Court should not make law (which, by invalidating or significantly altering the meaning of Congressional bills, Frankfurter felt they were), and so believers in this idea often vote not to grant cases the writ of certiorari. Other Justices have taken a more activist (see judicial activism) approach, believing that it is the role of the Supreme Court to reflect or change public mood. They often see the Constitution as a living, changing and adaptable document; thus their ruling will be in stark contrast to originalists. Compare, for example, the differing opinions of Justices Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is a more interventionist justice. Finally, there are some Justices who do not have a clear judicial philosophy, and so decide cases purely on each one's individual merits. Debate continues over which, if any, of these interpretive strategies is "better". Complicating the analysis is the lack of direct correspondance between the various interpretive strategies and contemporary notions of "conservatism" or "liberalism". For example, originalism is often associated with conservatism, but Justice Scalia's opinions in the cases in 2004 about suspects at Guantanamo Bay were probably the most libertarian, because he did not believe that the framers of the Constitution given Executive powers to be used to keep civilians away from judicial and legislative notice. (this article compliments of Wikipedia)
Constitutional Law Resources National Archives
Official U.S. government sources
Find Constitutional Lawyers. Click on the state below:
Our goal with the Constitutional section of LawyerFinder.com is to try and help legal consumers get in touch with legal professionals practicing Constitutional law, such as: Constitutional lawyers, Constitutional law firm or Constitutional attorneys. Constitutional News
 Legal News provided by Yahoo! News! |
|||||||||||
Legal MarketplaceExpert Witnesses | Practice Support | Court Reporter | Process Server | Bail Bonds | Legal Investigator | Legal Software | Legal Technology | ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) Home | About Us | Privacy & Disclaimer | Contact Us | Add your firm | Advertise Affiliate Program | Affiliate Login | Firm Login The purpose of LawyerFinder.com is to provide a listing of attorneys and experts and access to legal information and resources. WE DO NOT PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE. We strive to make sure that the content provided on this site is as up-to-date and as accurate, as possible. However, we do not guarantee that ALL information is current since laws and information tends to change on a regular basis. Listings by lawyers, businesses and experts on LawyerFinder.com are provided strictly by the lawyers,businesses or experts themselves. Although, we attempt to validate each listing before adding to the database, LawyerFinder.com is not responsible for errors and inaccuracies in listings or misrepresentation by listing professionals.. When viewing a listing, consider the state advertising rules to which lawyers and law firms must adhere and see our disclaimer & privacy policy. ©1997-2007 Trumpet Marketing Group,LLC Legal Practice Pages provided by LegalMarketingPros.com LawyerFinder®, Legal PracticePages™ and LifeTime Legal Links™ are trademarks of Trumpet Marketing Group, LLC. All rights reserved. | ||