Introduction to Legal Reasoning

Commonly turns upon the fact of whether the court is reviewing procedural impropriety OR one of executive (or legislative) discretion.

E.g. In Pakistan Steels Mills, the question of selling off the state owned industry was not at issue per say, the procedural problems in reaching the decision was at issue.

NOTE:

For the purposes of THIS CLASS...

ALL FACTS PRESENTED MUST BE TAKEN AS TRUE

Introduction to Legal Reasoning

The Right to Vote and Gerrymandering

Law as a Logical Operation to the Facts

Problems and IRAC

Standards of Review

Rational Basis

Requires only that there is some rational basis relating the law to the governmental interest

E.g. A law regulating licenses for doctors.

A tax on commodities involved in interstate commerce

• Rational Basis,
• Intermediate Level Scrutiny, &
• Strict Scrutiny

Our government wishes to rent out land owned by the Federal Government to Saudi Diplomats so that they may engage in hunting the Ibex. A person challenges the government action by petitioning the Supreme Court for Redress.

Notwithstanding any potential issues of standing, discuss whether or not the Supreme Court can take up this matter.

• Issue
• Rule
• Analysis
• Conclusion

A country bans the use of Islamic headscarves in public for women. A lower court fines Ms. Ahmad for wearing a headscarf while walking in the bazaar. She challenges the headscarf ban, and the fine in the Highest Court in the Country. Discuss what level of review the court will apply when considering this law.

• Issue: The issue is whether the headscarf ban is constitutional.
• Rule: The Freedom of religion is guaranteed; however, laws having an incidental impact on religious expression have been upheld.
• Analysis: The headscarf ban here targets only females wearing headscarves. This is unlike the case of Leyla Sahin, where the ban applied to all religious attire related to the deposed Turkish Caliphate.
• Conclusion: Therefore, the court will apply strict scrutiny when considering this law. It is more than probable that this law will not meet the constitutional test, and will be held to be unconstitutional.

Intermediate Level

Strict Scrutiny

The Law needs to be substantially related to the substantial State Interest

The Law Needs to be related to a substantial State Interest & it needs to be narrowly tailored (i.e. be the least restrictive means to achieve that interest

• Without the application of the law to a given set of facts, the law is meaningless.
• Analysis of the law to a given set of facts, must be logical for it to be convincing
• A logical application of the law also ensures consistency in its application to future events.

Which test applies for the purpose of review?

What set of facts triggers which test?

Judicial Review

The power of a court to take up and review State Action under a measurable Standard of Review

Separation of Powers of the different Branches

Conception of a Constitution and the Social Contract Theory

A constitution, for the purposes of this class, must be imagined as a social contract between the State and its subjects.

A State has a monopoly on violence

In order to balance and check the arbitrary application of State power to citizens, exclusive power is devolved to different State organs.

• The different branches are co-equal and have conferred upon them different functions by the constitution
• The key- Each branch needs to act within the bounds of the agreement. Therefore, all power, at every level in the State structure needs to be authorized by the constitution.
• The issue of what branch determines what is, and is not, authorized by the constitution

• Legislative
• Executive
• Judicial

• Marbury v. Madison
• Baker v. Carr
• Wattan Party v. The Federation of Pakistan (Steels Mills Case)

• What is a Political Question?
• What is the appropriate Standard of Review?

Political Question

meaning

Where the constitution says the domain to decide lies solely with another branch of government

Where a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue is given to a coordinate political department

Lack of judicially applicable standards

Standard of Review

note

A court has different standards of review for different questions

How the court will look at a decision or state action

The appropriate weight, or burden, the court applies to each party when making its decision

NOTE

Common Political Questions which the court will decline to hear

• Who to pick as a minister
• Whether to sell a State asset
• Anything involving Foreign Affairs
• Whether or not a country can enter into hostilities with another
• Whether to construct a dam
• When a President (or Governor, possibly) may exercise his power to pardon an offender
• Who Parliament can impeach

"Yo! That last one can't be true"

Yousuf Raza Gilani, probably.

Reasoning: Deductive or inductive

• Deductive: Moving from a general proposition in application to a specific instance
• Inductive: Moving from a specific proposition to a general application
• analogical reasoning: A subset of inductive reasoning, in either finding similarities or differences between propositions

Inductive Reasoning

Deductive Reasoning

p

q

• A deductive argument is such that IF the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true.

• Such that we move from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories.

Consider this Argument

If the dog did not bark, the visitor was not a stranger

The dog did not bark

Therefore, the visitor was not a stranger

If p then q

p occurs

Therefore q

"People take their car for servicing and checkups every few months without complaint. Why shouldn't they take similar care of their bodies?"

The argument attempts to prove that a physical checkup is like taking care of your car.

Argument Breakdown

People should take their cars in for regular checkups. Regular checkups reduce the risk of not treating certain issues with complex systems.

People's bodies are like cars (because human bodies, too are complex systems).

Therefore, people should take themselves in for regular checkups

A manufacturing defect in the car led to the plaintiff being injured. The plaintiff sues the Manufacturer.

A court earlier found a seller liable where dandelion extract was erroneously mislabeled by the seller. (Thomas v. Winchester---> rule from a previous decision)

This is like that case (or, both are similar) because both injuries were a result of the negligence of the seller. The nature of the prodcut was the same in both situations; however, both cases, the products were made dangerous because of malfeasance of the seller/manufacturer. (Analysis)

Therefore, the manufacturer of the car ought to be held liable.

Fun fact: Cocaine was present in CocaCola up till the start of the 19th Century.

That's where the name comes from... :/

Coca Leaf + Kola Nut Extract = CocaCola

"A dog was kept in the stables, and yet, though someone had been in and had fetched out a horse, [the dog] had not barked... Obviously the... visitor was someone whom the dog knew well."

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Adventure of Silver Blaze," in The Complete Sherlock Holmes (Garden City, NY: Garden City Books,1930), p 199.

• Thinks the law is cool [maybe].
• Is perhaps not dead?
• Excellent scarf presentation
• Therefore, Real name = Butternut SummerSquash

If you commit murder you should be punished

The jury found that the defendant committed murder

Therefore, the defendant should be punished

Victim: Mr. Fuzzyboots

Age: 4 weeks.

No cheezeburgers were had.

(Idea for new HBO mini series; lots of cat murders)