Welcome to the Deep dive. Today we're really diving into
some foundational stuff, the core principles of the US legal
system. We got some great lecture
material here thanks to you, our listener, digging into
constitutional law and professional responsibility.
That's right. And this material, it really
gives a path to understanding, you know, how power is set up
and balanced in the US, how individual rights are protected,
are supposed to be protected from the government.
And then, yeah, the ethical rules for lawyers navigating all
this. Right.
So our mission today is to kind of cut through the density, find
those really crucial bits of info, maybe some surprising
history behind key cases, and just make it clear why these
sometimes abstract ideas actually matter in the real
world. Let's jump in.
Absolutely. Let's start with constitutional
law, the material rightly says. It's what's way more than just a
list of rules. It's about the principles, the
history behind them and how they actually get applied.
It's the whole framework. And a huge piece of that
framework is federalism. That's this idea, pretty novel
at the time, of splitting power between the national government
and the state governments. Exactly.
Very innovative. The Constitution lays out
specific powers for the federal government.
You find most of them in Article 1, Section 8.
Things like taxes, regulating commerce specifically between
States, and international defense, those sorts of big
picture items, the enumerated powers.
OK, so the feds get the list of powers.
What about the states? What's their domain?
Well, pretty much everything else.
The 10th Amendment says. Any powers not specifically
given to the federal government or denied to the states are kept
by the states or the people. We have to call these reserved
powers or police powers. Police powers like law
enforcement. Sometimes, but it's broader than
that. Think education, public health,
safety, general welfare within the state.
So that day-to-day governing stuff, managing local concerns.
Gotcha. And this line where federal
power stops and state power starts, that's been a constant
source of tension, right? Courts have had to step in a
lot. The material points out some big
cases. Oh definitely. 2 are absolutely
key early on. 1st McAuliffe, Maryland.
This was Maryland trying to tax the National Bank, which
Congress had created, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the
opinion. And it was a huge win for
federal power. And it wasn't just about the
bank tax itself, was it? There was a bigger principle.
Exactly. Marshall established this idea
of implied powers. He basically said, look, if the
Constitution gives Congress certain powers, like taxing
borrowing money, then it also gives Congress the power to do
what's necessary and proper to actually use those powers.
Creating a bank fell into that category.
The necessary and proper clause? And didn't he have that famous
line about taxing? He did.
The power to tax involves the power to destroy.
His point was a state can't just tax a federal institution out of
existence. That really cemented federal
supremacy when federal and state laws clash.
OK, so that's McCulloch. What about the other big one,
Gibbons? Gibbons V Ogden.
Yeah, this one was about steamboats on the Hudson River.
New York gave a monopoly to one Guy Ogden, but Gibbons had a
license from the federal government to operate steamboats
there too. So state versus federal grants,
again, both touching on commerce.
Right. And Marshall again took a really
broadview of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
He said commerce isn't just, you know, buying and selling stuff
includes navigation and Congress's power over Interstate
commerce. He called it plenary.
Plenary meaning complete. Absolutely.
Pretty much complete within its designated sphere, this ruling
was massive for creating like a unified national market stopped
states from setting up barriers against each other.
Makes sense. But you said this balance
shifts, right? It's not stuck in the early
1800s. Not at all.
The material notes this Think about the New Deal era, huge
expansion of federal power, often justified by reading the
Commerce Clause very broadly. Right there was that initial
pushback from the Supreme Court against Roosevelt's programs.
But then, well, things change. The famous switch in time that
saved 9. Political pressure definitely
played a role. A clear example of how the court
doesn't operate in a total vacuum.
But you know, more recently there's been a bit of a counter
trend. The court has started pushing
back, finding some limits to that Commerce Clause power.
Like that case, United States V Lopez about the Gun Free School
Zones Act. Exactly, the court said.
Hold on. Just having a gun near a school,
that's not really an economic activity, and it doesn't
substantially affect Interstate commerce in the way needed for
Congress to regulate it under that specific power.
And that was a big deal. Yeah, because it was the first
time in like over half a century the court had invalidated a
federal law on those grounds. It signaled that maybe the Super
expansive view of the Commerce Clause had some boundaries
after. All it really shows how these
core ideas are still being debated and redefined.
OK, so that covers the split between federal and state power.
What about the division within the federal government
separation of powers? Right.
The classic 3 branches legislative That's Congress.
They make the laws, executive, the president enforces the laws,
and judicially courts interpret the laws.
The whole idea is to stop any one branch from getting too
powerful. Tyranny and all that.
And they police each other through checks and balances.
Checks and balances, exactly. Each branch has tools to limit
the others. Congress passes a law, President
can veto it. Congress can override the veto,
though it's hard. President picks judges.
Senate has to approve them and the courts.
They got a huge check from Marbury V Madison.
Marbury, The case about the undelivered paperwork that
somehow became foundational. It's an amazing story, really.
Yeah. Came out of the messy transition
from President Adams to President Jefferson.
Adams made a bunch of last minute judicial appointments to
the midnight judges, but his Secretary of State, who happened
to be John Marshall before he became Chief Justice?
Oh, wow. Didn't get all the official
commissions delivered. William Marbury was one guy who
didn't get his, so he sued the new Secretary of State, James
Madison, directly in the Supreme Court, asking for an order, a
writ of mandamus, to force Madison to hand over the
Commission. And Marshall, now Chief Justice,
had to rule on a situation he was kind of involved in.
Tricky, very. But his solution was, well,
brilliant, he said. Yes, Marbury absolutely has a
legal right to his Commission. But he then looked at the law
Marbury used to bring the case to the Supreme Court, part of
the Judiciary Act of 1789. Marshall said that part of the
law was unconstitutional. Why?
Because Marshall argued it tried to give the Supreme Court a type
of original jurisdiction, hearing a case 1st that the
Constitution itself didn't allow for that specific situation.
So he gives Marbury the moral victory, but denies him the
actual job, and in doing so grabs a massive power for the
court itself. Exactly.
But declaring that act of Congress unconstitutional,
Marshall established the principle of judicial review,
the power of the courts to review laws and actions of the
other branches and declare them void if they conflict with the
Constitution. It's not explicitly spelled out
in the Constitution, but. Marbury made it real.
Wow. A cornerstone of the whole
system, born from a political fight and a clever ruling and
judicial review, is just one check.
We see others all the time. Presidential vetoes, Senate
confirmations, Impeachment court challenges to executive orders.
OK, so we have the structure, the checks.
Now what about protecting people from the government?
Individual rights? That's the Bill of Rights, the
14th Amendment. Primarily, yes, yeah.
And two huge concepts come out of those, especially the 14th
Amendment, due process and equal protection.
Due process shows up in the 5th Amendment against the federal
government and the 14th against the states.
Basically says government can't take away your life, liberty or
property without due process of law and.
The material breaks that down. Into two types.
First, procedural due process. This is about how the government
acts. Are the procedures fair?
Did you get notice? A chance to be heard?
The case, Goldberg V Kelly, is a good example, the court said.
You need a hearing before welfare benefits are cut off
because losing that support is such a big deal.
Fair process. Makes sense.
What's the other kind? Substantive due process.
This is trickier. It's less about the how and more
about the what. Does the government have a good
enough reason to interfere with your fundamental rights or
liberties at all, even if they use fair procedures?
It's about protecting certain fundamental freedoms from
government intrusion. And the lecture material
mentions some really significant and sometimes controversial
cases here. It does.
It mentions Roe V Wade, noting it found a fundamental right to
abortion linked to privacy under the 14th Amendment's Due process
clause and acknowledging its contentious history.
Right. And it also notes impartially
that Roe was later overturned by the Dobbs decision.
The material states the Dobbs court held the Constitution
doesn't provide a right to abortion.
Correct. That's how the source presents
the outcome of Dobbs, and it also brings up Alberto Feld V
Hodges. In that case, the court found
the right to marry is a fundamental liberty, again out
of the 14th Amendment's due process clause, and that this
right extends to same sex couples.
The source describes this as a landmark for LGBTQ plus rights.
So substantive due process deals with these really core personal
liberties and the interpretation can clearly evolve
significantly. Definitely.
Now the other big 14th Amendment concept is equal protection.
The government can't deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.
Basically, treat similar people similarly.
Don't make arbitrary distinctions.
And courts have different ways of looking at laws to see if
they violate this right levels of scrutiny.
Exactly 3 levels. The default is rational basis
review. If a law doesn't involve a
specific vulnerable group or a fundamental right, the
government just needs to show the law is rationally related to
a legitimate government interest.
Most laws pass this test easily. OK, what's the next step up?
Intermediate scrutiny. This applies to laws that
classify people based on things like gender or whether someone
was born outside of marriage. Here, the government has a
higher burden. The law must be substantially
related to an important government interest.
Is there an example? Craig V Borne is the classic
Oklahoma had different drinking ages for men and women for low
alcohol beer, The court said the state's reasons, based on
statistics about drunk driving, weren't substantially related
enough to justify treating men and women differently in that
way. So struck down.
And the highest level. Strict scrutiny.
This is reserved for laws that discriminate based on suspect
classifications. Race, national origin, sometimes
alien age, or laws that burden fundamental rights.
To survive this, the government has to show the laws necessary
to achieve a compelling government interest and is
narrowly tailored. It's incredibly hard for a lot
to pass strict scrutiny. And the landmark case here is
Brown V Board of Education. Absolutely.
The court looked at state mandated racial segregation in
schools, applied strict scrutiny implicitly, and declared
separate but equal is inherently unequal.
It overturned decades of precedent and was a monumental
step for civil rights driven by the Equal Protection Clause.
Such a pivotal moment. The material also loops back
quickly to the Commerce Clause here, doesn't it?
Showing how it relates to individual rights too.
Yeah, it shows how that broad interpretation of Congress's
power to regulate commerce was used not just for economic
stuff, but also to achieve social goals impacting
individuals. Like Wickard V Philburn, that
still sounds wild, regulating wheat a farmer grew just for his
own use. It does seem extreme, but the
courts thinking was well if lots of farmers did this it would
affect the national wheat market so Congress could regulate even
that small local activity under the Commerce Clause because of
the potential aggregate effect. The material calls at the high
watermark for a reason. And that broad power then let
Congress tackle discrimination. It's exactly In Heart of Atlanta
Motel V United States, the court upheld the Civil Rights Act of
1964's ban on racial discrimination in places like
motels, reasoning that discrimination discouraged black
people from traveling Interstate, thus affecting
commerce. So an economic power used for
social justice. It really highlights how
interconnected these constitutional concepts are.
Federal power, individual rights, economic regulation, it
all ties together. It really does.
So that's a good overview of the constitutional side from the
material federalism, separation of powers, the huge role of
judicial review thanks to Marbury, and then core rights
like due process and equal protection with a Commerce
Clause often in the background. OK, that gives us a solid
picture of the government's structure and limits.
Now let's shift focus to the people operating within that
system, specifically lawyers. Professional responsibility,
right? Moving from the rules for the
Government to the rules for the lawyers themselves, the lecture
material points to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct as
the the main guide here. ABA, American Bar Association
And these are just models, right?
Not automatically the law everywhere.
Correct. The ABA drafts them, but they
only become binding rules when a state's Bar Association or
Supreme Court officially adopts them, maybe with some tweaks.
But most states base their rules heavily on the ABA model.
They cover everything how lawyers should act towards
clients, courts, other lawyers. The core principles are
competence, diligence, honesty, integrity.
And the material flags some key ethical areas.
Conflicts of interest seems like a big one.
Oh, it's huge. A conflict exists if there's a
significant risk that the lawyers responsibilities to one
client will be well materially limited by their
responsibilities to another client, a former client, or even
their own personal interests. So you can't effectively
represent client A if doing so hurts client B, or if your own
interests get in the way. Basically, yes.
The rules talk about concurrent conflicts, representing opposing
sides in the same matter or clients whose interests clash
right now, and successive conflicts where representing
your current client might harm a former client's interest related
to the past representation. Sounds like a minefield.
How do lawyers handle it? Constant vigilance.
Really. You have to check for conflicts
before taking on a case. Sometimes a conflict can be
waived if the clients give informed consent in writing, but
that's only if the lawyer reasonably believes they can
still provide competent and diligent representation to
everyone involved. It's complex.
If there's any doubt, the advice is usually to decline the
representation or seek guidance. Better safe than sorry.
OK? Another major duty.
Confidentiality. The material really stresses
this one. As it should.
It's probably the most fundamental duty.
Lawyers must keep secret all information relating to the
representation of a client, whatever its source.
It can't be revealed unless the client consents or a very
specific exception applies. This is what allows clients to
trust their lawyers and tell them everything, which is vital
for good advice. All information that's broad.
Are there any exceptions mentioned?
The source mentions a few narrow ones, like a lawyer may reveal
information to the extent necessary to prevent reasonably
certain death or substantial bodily harm, or obviously if the
client gives informed consent, but the default is strict
silence. OK.
And how does this differ from attorney-client privilege?
People sometimes confuse those. Good question.
They are definitely related but distinct.
Confidentiality, like we said, is broad.
It covers almost everything the lawyer learns about the client's
matter. Attorney-client privilege is
much narrower. Narrower how?
What does privilege protect? Privilege specifically protects
confidential communications, the actual back and forth between
the lawyer and the client, made for the purpose of seeking or
providing legal advice. It's an evidence rule, meaning
those specific communications generally can't be forced out in
court. So confidentiality is the
ethical duty covering all info, while privilege is the legal
protection for the advice seeking communication itself.
Exactly. Privilege is a subset of
confidentiality. Its goal is to protect those
candid conversations about legal matters like confidentiality.
The client holds the privilege and can waive it.
And importantly, the source notes, it doesn't cover
communications made to help commit a future crime or fraud.
You can't hide behind privilege for that.
Breaching either duty has serious repercussions.
That distinction is clear. The material finishes this part
by saying, basically, knowing the stuff isn't just academic,
right? It's crucial for actually
practicing law, right? It mentions these concepts are
heavily tested, the think bar exams like the MBE and Mee at
references, and that lawyers use analytical frameworks like the
IRS, ME method, issue rule, application, conclusion to apply
these complex rules to real situations.
It connects the theory to the practice.
OK, we've definitely covered a lot of ground in this deep dive
thanks to the material you provided.
Really have from the big picture structure, federalism,
separation of powers, how judicial review emerged in
Marbury down to how individual rights like due process and
equal protection work, and how the Commerce Clause wheeze
through it all. And then shifting to the
professional roles, the critical importance of handling
conflicts, the absolute necessity of confidentiality,
and the specific legal shield of attorney-client privilege.
Yeah, these aren't just abstract ideas.
They really shape how our government functions, how our
rights are protected and how lawyers are expected to behave.
They're the foundation. We certainly hope this
discussion has helped you, our listener, get a clearer handle
on these really vital areas of law.
It's fascinating stuff. It really is.
And maybe a final thought for you to chew on based on all
this. We saw how those early cases,
McCulloch, Givens, Marbury, profoundly shaped the balance of
power, really expanded federal authority and carved out the
judiciary's role. Then we see modern cases, Lopez,
Dobbs, Obergefell, showing that how we interpret the
Constitution isn't fixed, right? It changes, sometimes
dramatically. So what does that ongoing
reinterpretation tell you about the Constitution itself?
Is it more like a fixed blueprint, or is it something
alive that adapts over time? And how does that dynamic nature
affect all the legal principles we've been talking about today?
Definitely something to think about.
Thanks again for providing the material for this deep dive.
Great conversation.