Reynolds is a very important case in the history of religious freedom. While the standards it set down have certainly seen revision over the past years, it was the first Supreme Court case that officially ruled that the free exercise of religion is not unlimited.
Case Facts
A Mormon follower, George Reynolds, married his second wife and was charged with violating a Congressional law applied to the Utah territory. Reynolds argued that he was following his faith and he was therefore protected under the free exercise clause.
Legal Question
Does the free exercise clause in the First Amendment protect polygamy?
Ruling
No. In a unanimous decision the Court ruled that while Congress may not legislate a person's opinion, Congress may legislate action.
Chief Justice Waite wrote the majority opinion and emphasized that the Constitution does not define religion. However, the Court suggests that we must look at the "history of the times in the midst of when the provision was adopted." Waite argues that when the First Amendment was passed, it was based on the notion that religion was a relationship solely between man and god. Legislative action reaches action, not opinion. "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."
The Court then proceeds to demonize the practice of polygamy. Waite writes that it has always been seen as an unclean practice in the United States and the second marriage has always been void in the earliest recorded cases of English common law. In either case, the practice has been considered an offense against society. Furthermore, Waite calls attention to the fact that no state in the union has ever sanctioned polygamy, and therefore there is no way that the Constitution could possibly protect this behavior. He essentially established that if it was not an accepted religious practice when the Constitution was ratified, it does not enjoy the protection of the Constitution.
Ultimately, the Court states that the law passed by Congress is designed to maintain civility in the United States. "Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?" In the end, the law is not subservient to religious belief.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Beginning Religion: Exercise and Establishment
Marbury v. Madison is the quintessential, if not cliche way to start any discussion about the Supreme Court and the cases that it has dealt with over the years. However, to its detriment, it is boring. No disrespect, but the honest truth is that the application to our everyday lives or even our everyday interests does not exist when reading the case (unless you are a Supreme Court fan like myself).
That is why I bring up what is hopefully the first of many Constitutional issues that will be discussed on this site: religion. I chose this because it is one of the more contentious issues that comes before the court. Religion plays and important role in our country whether people like it or not. It is often taught that the first settlers came to escape religious persecution. References to god exist on any number of government documents and in government buildings. If nothing else, religion permeates nearly every American life at some point. That is why I've chosen it to as the first of topics.
The Constitution actually only mentions religion once in Article VI.
"no religious Test shall every be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The subject of religion came up only briefly during the Constitution convention, but some delegates did criticize that the Constitution failed to protect the right to freely exercising religion. In response, the Bill of Rights included TWO provisions. The free exercise and establishment clauses. They read:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
A few points to leave you with are:
1. What is religion? What qualifies a belief as a religion that deserves protection?
2. How strict should the establishment clause be read? Is having the word "god" on the U.S. dollar an establishment of religion?
That is why I bring up what is hopefully the first of many Constitutional issues that will be discussed on this site: religion. I chose this because it is one of the more contentious issues that comes before the court. Religion plays and important role in our country whether people like it or not. It is often taught that the first settlers came to escape religious persecution. References to god exist on any number of government documents and in government buildings. If nothing else, religion permeates nearly every American life at some point. That is why I've chosen it to as the first of topics.
The Constitution actually only mentions religion once in Article VI.
"no religious Test shall every be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The subject of religion came up only briefly during the Constitution convention, but some delegates did criticize that the Constitution failed to protect the right to freely exercising religion. In response, the Bill of Rights included TWO provisions. The free exercise and establishment clauses. They read:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
A few points to leave you with are:
1. What is religion? What qualifies a belief as a religion that deserves protection?
2. How strict should the establishment clause be read? Is having the word "god" on the U.S. dollar an establishment of religion?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Marbury v. Madison 1 CR. (5 U.S.) 137 (1803) PART 3
Is the Supreme Court the appropriate place for Marbury to seek remedy?
Yes according to the Judiciary Act of 1789. No according to the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall was not only about to undertake judicial review, but also define and solidify its place the judicial branch.
Judicial Review: The authority of federal courts to declare a law unconstitutional and therefore void.
While that may sound a bit confusing, it is really quite simple. Think of it like this:
In this country, we must obey the law (rules). If we don't (like we steal a Nintendo Wii), we go see a judge and then he throws you in jail. Judicial review works in a similar way.
In this country, the laws past by Congress also need to follow the rules written in the Constitution. Similar to what happens to us, if a law breaks the rules, it also gets sent to the slammer. A judge examines the law and then decides if it violates what is written in the Constitution. If it does, he "strikes down" the law, and that law is gone.
In the opinion, Marshall is very practical about why this power should be exercised by the judicial branch. He writes:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret the rule.
He essentially states that since courts are always dealing with situations where they need to understand the law (a trial), it makes sense that they would be the ones who would have the responsibility of interpreting the laws. Furthermore, he emphasizes that this power is necessary because the Constitution would be useless if there was no way to enforce its rules. Poof! Judicial review is born.
How is it applied in this case? Well, the problem is that the Judiciary Act of 1789 allows people to bring their case directly to the Supreme Court (specifically Marbury in this case), or in other words, the act allowed this case to originate in the Supreme Court (original jurisdiction). HOWEVER, Article III already specifies when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a case. Congress does not have the power to add new instances.
I understand this a bit confusing, so I would like to use an easier example. Think of the requirements for becoming president. The Constitution states that a person needs to be a citizen born in the United States and thirty-five years old. Those are the only two requirements and no law can be passed that adds to these requirements. It would be unconstitutional if they tried to make a law saying that a person also had to be from New York... or that they had to be thirty-six for that matter. Because the Constitution has already spoken on the issue, nothing can be added.
In this case, the Constitution already specifically lays out when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Therefore, Congress cannot add to that jurisdiction. That part of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional and Marbury should not be in the Supreme Court for this case.
A few interesting points:
1. Chief Justice Marshall pulled a great coup in this case. He broadened the Supreme Court's power undoubtably against the wishes of President Jefferson. However, Marbury did not get the appointment, so Jefferson won the case in a practical sense and couldn't really complain.
2. The Court ruled that Marbury should have brought his case to a lower court first. However, for his particular issue, no lower court existed yet. He had no place to turn. He was screwed from the beginning.
3. Marbury never did get his commission. Yet, his name will forever be known because he didn't get it. Seems like a fair trade to me.
Yes according to the Judiciary Act of 1789. No according to the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall was not only about to undertake judicial review, but also define and solidify its place the judicial branch.
Judicial Review: The authority of federal courts to declare a law unconstitutional and therefore void.
While that may sound a bit confusing, it is really quite simple. Think of it like this:
In this country, we must obey the law (rules). If we don't (like we steal a Nintendo Wii), we go see a judge and then he throws you in jail. Judicial review works in a similar way.
In this country, the laws past by Congress also need to follow the rules written in the Constitution. Similar to what happens to us, if a law breaks the rules, it also gets sent to the slammer. A judge examines the law and then decides if it violates what is written in the Constitution. If it does, he "strikes down" the law, and that law is gone.
In the opinion, Marshall is very practical about why this power should be exercised by the judicial branch. He writes:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret the rule.
He essentially states that since courts are always dealing with situations where they need to understand the law (a trial), it makes sense that they would be the ones who would have the responsibility of interpreting the laws. Furthermore, he emphasizes that this power is necessary because the Constitution would be useless if there was no way to enforce its rules. Poof! Judicial review is born.
How is it applied in this case? Well, the problem is that the Judiciary Act of 1789 allows people to bring their case directly to the Supreme Court (specifically Marbury in this case), or in other words, the act allowed this case to originate in the Supreme Court (original jurisdiction). HOWEVER, Article III already specifies when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a case. Congress does not have the power to add new instances.
I understand this a bit confusing, so I would like to use an easier example. Think of the requirements for becoming president. The Constitution states that a person needs to be a citizen born in the United States and thirty-five years old. Those are the only two requirements and no law can be passed that adds to these requirements. It would be unconstitutional if they tried to make a law saying that a person also had to be from New York... or that they had to be thirty-six for that matter. Because the Constitution has already spoken on the issue, nothing can be added.
In this case, the Constitution already specifically lays out when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Therefore, Congress cannot add to that jurisdiction. That part of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional and Marbury should not be in the Supreme Court for this case.
A few interesting points:
1. Chief Justice Marshall pulled a great coup in this case. He broadened the Supreme Court's power undoubtably against the wishes of President Jefferson. However, Marbury did not get the appointment, so Jefferson won the case in a practical sense and couldn't really complain.
2. The Court ruled that Marbury should have brought his case to a lower court first. However, for his particular issue, no lower court existed yet. He had no place to turn. He was screwed from the beginning.
3. Marbury never did get his commission. Yet, his name will forever be known because he didn't get it. Seems like a fair trade to me.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Marbury v. Madison 1 CR. (5 U.S.) 137 (1803) PART 2
Picking up where we left off, the stage was set for the most important case to ever hit the Supreme Court. Ultimately, Marbury v. Madison facilitates the creation of judicial review (the authority of federal judges to declare laws unconstitutional and therefore void). However, there was a lot more to the case than judicial review. In fact, a majority of it has little to judicial review, but deals with the practicalities of the case. In part 2, we'll be covering what the Supreme Court said about everything else in this case EXCEPT judicial review. Judicial review is not particularly difficult to understand, but it definitely deserves its own section and would certainly be under valued if tacked on with the rest of the case. Game on.
To begin, it should be made clear that the majority opinion in this case was written by the Chief Justice, John Marshall, and was decided in a unanimous vote (4-0). In the opinion, Marshall laid out FOUR main questions that deserved attention:
I. Does Marbury have a legal right to the commission appointing him to the Justice of the Peace position?
II. If he has the right, does the law provide remedy?
III. Is a writ of mandamus a proper/ available source of remedy in this case?
IV. May such a writ of mandamus be issued from the Supreme Court in this case?
I. In deciding this issue, Marshall looked specifically at the president's appointment power in the U.S. Constitution. A federal appointment is made SOLELY by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. After this takes place, a commission is created, signed by the president, and then the secretary of state affixes the seal of the presidency and delivers the commission. In the opinion of the Court, the signing of the commission is the final act in the appointment. To argue that the delivery of the commission is necessary to give Marbury the position would insinuate the the delivery is a necessary part of the appointment process. It is not. Marshall makes it clear that once the seal of the president is on the appointment, the process is finished and the executive has finished his or her role in the process. After the appointment is made, the president no longer has power over the office. Therefore, according to the Court, Jefferson would have no power in the appointment of Marbury. Witholding the commission violates the law.
II. The next question is one that Marshall touches on simply to make a point about the United States and the law. He writes:
"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."
He basically states that the U.S. has laws and it would be stupid if there was no way to enforce them.
III. For this issue, Marshall finds a writ of mandamus to be a perfectly fine option for the situation. He does preface the issue with the claim that it would not be applicable in all cases. For instance, some duties performed by the executive branch are political in nature (they are performed at the discretion of the president) and the Court would have no authority to dictate how the executive would carry out those duties. However, there are other duties that are specifically directed by law, and this falls into the judicial branch sphere of influence.
IV. This is the final issue and is designated as the issue that gave us judicial review. To simplify what was written above, the question that needs answering is:
Is the Supreme Court the correct place to find remedy for obtaining the appointment?
This case began in the Supreme Court (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION). Marbury relied on a provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789 which allowed a person to begin a case in the Supreme Court if he or she sought to obtain a writ of mandamus against a person holding office in the United States. Madison was the secretary of state, so he was obviously a person holding federal office. Marshall agreed with Marbury on this issue, but went on to use judicial review on the Judiciary Act of 1789. In other words, Marbury had accurately understood the Congressional Act, but Congress had violated the Constitution in the passage of that act and therefore Marbury cannot seek remedy from the Supreme Court.
This was only the tip of the iceberg in discussing the fourth point, but I will come back to it adequately in the next post.
To begin, it should be made clear that the majority opinion in this case was written by the Chief Justice, John Marshall, and was decided in a unanimous vote (4-0). In the opinion, Marshall laid out FOUR main questions that deserved attention:
I. Does Marbury have a legal right to the commission appointing him to the Justice of the Peace position?
II. If he has the right, does the law provide remedy?
III. Is a writ of mandamus a proper/ available source of remedy in this case?
IV. May such a writ of mandamus be issued from the Supreme Court in this case?
I. In deciding this issue, Marshall looked specifically at the president's appointment power in the U.S. Constitution. A federal appointment is made SOLELY by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. After this takes place, a commission is created, signed by the president, and then the secretary of state affixes the seal of the presidency and delivers the commission. In the opinion of the Court, the signing of the commission is the final act in the appointment. To argue that the delivery of the commission is necessary to give Marbury the position would insinuate the the delivery is a necessary part of the appointment process. It is not. Marshall makes it clear that once the seal of the president is on the appointment, the process is finished and the executive has finished his or her role in the process. After the appointment is made, the president no longer has power over the office. Therefore, according to the Court, Jefferson would have no power in the appointment of Marbury. Witholding the commission violates the law.
II. The next question is one that Marshall touches on simply to make a point about the United States and the law. He writes:
"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."
He basically states that the U.S. has laws and it would be stupid if there was no way to enforce them.
III. For this issue, Marshall finds a writ of mandamus to be a perfectly fine option for the situation. He does preface the issue with the claim that it would not be applicable in all cases. For instance, some duties performed by the executive branch are political in nature (they are performed at the discretion of the president) and the Court would have no authority to dictate how the executive would carry out those duties. However, there are other duties that are specifically directed by law, and this falls into the judicial branch sphere of influence.
IV. This is the final issue and is designated as the issue that gave us judicial review. To simplify what was written above, the question that needs answering is:
Is the Supreme Court the correct place to find remedy for obtaining the appointment?
This case began in the Supreme Court (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION). Marbury relied on a provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789 which allowed a person to begin a case in the Supreme Court if he or she sought to obtain a writ of mandamus against a person holding office in the United States. Madison was the secretary of state, so he was obviously a person holding federal office. Marshall agreed with Marbury on this issue, but went on to use judicial review on the Judiciary Act of 1789. In other words, Marbury had accurately understood the Congressional Act, but Congress had violated the Constitution in the passage of that act and therefore Marbury cannot seek remedy from the Supreme Court.
This was only the tip of the iceberg in discussing the fourth point, but I will come back to it adequately in the next post.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Marbury v. Madison 1 CR. (5 U.S.) 137 (1803) PART 1
So this is really the big one. The case that set up everything that the Supreme Court does today. Yet, it is striking how many people actually have no idea what happened in this case. To be fair, it was not a simple situation by any stretch. Furthermore, the big result (not to spoil it but JUDICIAL REVIEW) had very little to do with much of the historical background surrounding the case. So, I believe that this case requires a bit of finesse and therefore I am going to split it into three parts: 1) background, 2) the decision made by the Court, and 3) the creation of judicial review and what judicial review is. Let's begin.
BACKGROUND
The 1800 presidential election was between incumbent president John Adams (FEDERALIST: all power to the national government) and Thomas Jefferson (ANTIFEDERALIST: hurray states' rights). In short, Adams and the Federalists lost big; the presidency and both houses of Congress.
Whatever your political views may be, the departure of the Federalists was less than graceful. Following their loss of two branches of government, the Federalists made an effort to secure the one remaining branch. The Circuit Court Act, or "Midnight Judges Act," created six new circuit courts and created sixteen new positions to be appointed (all by the lame-duck Federalist president and Congress). Furthermore, the Federalist Congress also passed the Organic Act of 1801, which allowed Adams to appoint forty-two justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. The stage was now set for the most important case in the history of the Supreme Court.
Marbury (the one from the title) was one of the justices appointed by Adams at the end of his administration. Marbury was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. However, his appointment was not delivered by the outgoing secretary of state (interestingly, John Marshall, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). When Jefferson became president, he ordered his secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver the undelivered commissions (including the one for Marbury).
In response, Marbury went to the Supreme Court and asked them to issue a (literally: we command) to Madison, ordering the new Secretary of State to deliver the appointments. Marbury was able to sue under a provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789 that allowed the Court to issue writs of mandamus to anyone holding federal office.
Before closing this section, I'd like to point to the conflicted position of the new Chief Justice, John Marshall. As mentioned earlier, he was secretary of state under the former president John Adams and was now being asked to rule on the issue of an appointment made by Adams. The Federalists were looking to Marshall to rule on their side. However, Marshall was conscious of the danger in causing a fight with Jefferson and the Antifederalists (Jefferson and Congress were actually considering impeaching some of the federal judges including Marshall). The stage was set for what would become the most important case in the history of the Supreme Court.
BACKGROUND
The 1800 presidential election was between incumbent president John Adams (FEDERALIST: all power to the national government) and Thomas Jefferson (ANTIFEDERALIST: hurray states' rights). In short, Adams and the Federalists lost big; the presidency and both houses of Congress.
Whatever your political views may be, the departure of the Federalists was less than graceful. Following their loss of two branches of government, the Federalists made an effort to secure the one remaining branch. The Circuit Court Act, or "Midnight Judges Act," created six new circuit courts and created sixteen new positions to be appointed (all by the lame-duck Federalist president and Congress). Furthermore, the Federalist Congress also passed the Organic Act of 1801, which allowed Adams to appoint forty-two justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. The stage was now set for the most important case in the history of the Supreme Court.
Marbury (the one from the title) was one of the justices appointed by Adams at the end of his administration. Marbury was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. However, his appointment was not delivered by the outgoing secretary of state (interestingly, John Marshall, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). When Jefferson became president, he ordered his secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver the undelivered commissions (including the one for Marbury).
In response, Marbury went to the Supreme Court and asked them to issue a (literally: we command) to Madison, ordering the new Secretary of State to deliver the appointments. Marbury was able to sue under a provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789 that allowed the Court to issue writs of mandamus to anyone holding federal office.
Before closing this section, I'd like to point to the conflicted position of the new Chief Justice, John Marshall. As mentioned earlier, he was secretary of state under the former president John Adams and was now being asked to rule on the issue of an appointment made by Adams. The Federalists were looking to Marshall to rule on their side. However, Marshall was conscious of the danger in causing a fight with Jefferson and the Antifederalists (Jefferson and Congress were actually considering impeaching some of the federal judges including Marshall). The stage was set for what would become the most important case in the history of the Supreme Court.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
BUSY
I've got an important interview this week so I don't plan on posting until either late Friday or early Saturday.
Eric
Eric
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The Judiciary Act of 1789
The Judiciary Act of 1789 took the abstract rules laid out in Article III and created a system where they would actually be applicable. Remember, until this act was passed, neither the Supreme Court, nor any other federal court existed in the United States. The law is complicated, but in general it served two main purposes:
First, it was the Judiciary Act that established the federal court structure. The Constitution only mentions that the Supreme Court exists, but says nothing else. Congress, not the Constitution, determines the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Constitution only mentions the existence of federal courts, but none existed until the Judiciary Act was passed. It created district and circuit courts. District courts were presided over by one judge (which is still true today) and the circuit courts were made up of one district court judge and two Supreme Court justices (three judges would hear cases). Today, three judges still hear cases in circuit courts, but those judges are appointed by the president.
Second, the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the jurisdiction that each federal court would have. This part of the law gets a bit thick because it deals with the district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. For our purposes, not much of it is important to cover in detail. However, one particularly significant portion, Section 25, allowed the Supreme Court to hear appeals from the highest state courts if those courts upheld a state law against a claim that the state law violated the US Constitution or US laws and/or treaties.
Ultimately, the Judiciary Act of 1789 is important because it established a court system that is very similar to the system we have today. Not only that, but it is a reminder that the Constitution does not dictate how the court system exists in the United States. Other that what is actually listed in the US Constitution, Congress holds all authority to determine what types of cases the Supreme Court and all federal Courts can hear.
First, it was the Judiciary Act that established the federal court structure. The Constitution only mentions that the Supreme Court exists, but says nothing else. Congress, not the Constitution, determines the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Constitution only mentions the existence of federal courts, but none existed until the Judiciary Act was passed. It created district and circuit courts. District courts were presided over by one judge (which is still true today) and the circuit courts were made up of one district court judge and two Supreme Court justices (three judges would hear cases). Today, three judges still hear cases in circuit courts, but those judges are appointed by the president.
Second, the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the jurisdiction that each federal court would have. This part of the law gets a bit thick because it deals with the district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. For our purposes, not much of it is important to cover in detail. However, one particularly significant portion, Section 25, allowed the Supreme Court to hear appeals from the highest state courts if those courts upheld a state law against a claim that the state law violated the US Constitution or US laws and/or treaties.
Ultimately, the Judiciary Act of 1789 is important because it established a court system that is very similar to the system we have today. Not only that, but it is a reminder that the Constitution does not dictate how the court system exists in the United States. Other that what is actually listed in the US Constitution, Congress holds all authority to determine what types of cases the Supreme Court and all federal Courts can hear.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Supreme Court, Article III, and Sources of Authority
An obvious choice to begin any anything about the Supreme Court would certainly be Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S.) 137 (1803). However, I feel that most overviews of the Supreme Court and its power are overlooked. Sure Marbury is a very important case (why?... it established the Supreme Court's ability to conduct judicial review.. uh doi), but it is equally important to look at what the Constitution says about the judicial branch in general and how we have progressed since the ratification in 1787.
Article III: The Judiciary
It may be interesting to know that the framers viewed the judiciary as the least dangerous branch upon creation. This was primarily because many of the framers were already comfortable with the role of the courts. The colonies and Great Britain already had firmly established court systems and many of the delegates had backgrounds in law. So, what did they actually put to paper back in the day?
Article III, Section 1 establishes the Supreme Court and the framework for the creation of further federal courts. The Supreme Court is permanent, but Congress has the power to create and eliminate lower federal tribunals. The final role of Section 1 is to provide judges with protection from their salary being lessened while they hold their position. While this may seem like an odd inclusion, the "compensation clause" stands as proof that the framers wished for the judiciary to be protected from legislative interference.
Section 2 is where things get a bit meatier (it should since it's the longest section in Article III). This section details the jurisdiction that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts (none of which existed yet) would have. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, original jurisdiction (cases that would begin in the Supreme Court) would occur only when a case involved an ambassador, public minister, or cases where a state was an involved party. However, the Supreme Court also has appellate jurisdiction (cases that begin in either state or lower federal courts, but are "appealed" and brought to the Supreme Court), but that jurisdiction is subjected to Congressional exceptions. Here, the framers created a check on the power of the courts by allowing Congress to determine the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Finally, Section 3 has little to do with the Supreme Court in particular, but lays out the requirements for someone being charged with treason.
Conclusion
So that was the basic structure of the Supreme Court when the Constitution was ratified. It has evolved a long way since then and will continue to do so. Another small piece of interest is that federal courts are slightly affected by Article II. It is here that the president is granted the power to appoint federal judges with the "advice and consent" of the Senate (majority vote). A little fact, Supreme Court nominations are the most rejected nominations by the Senate. Well, that is the end of the first installment on SCOTUS Review. I plan to next tackle the Judiciary Act of 1789 and cover a little bit more of Congress' use of their ability to grant and strip federal court jurisdiction.
Eric Dietz
Article III: The Judiciary
It may be interesting to know that the framers viewed the judiciary as the least dangerous branch upon creation. This was primarily because many of the framers were already comfortable with the role of the courts. The colonies and Great Britain already had firmly established court systems and many of the delegates had backgrounds in law. So, what did they actually put to paper back in the day?
Article III, Section 1 establishes the Supreme Court and the framework for the creation of further federal courts. The Supreme Court is permanent, but Congress has the power to create and eliminate lower federal tribunals. The final role of Section 1 is to provide judges with protection from their salary being lessened while they hold their position. While this may seem like an odd inclusion, the "compensation clause" stands as proof that the framers wished for the judiciary to be protected from legislative interference.
Section 2 is where things get a bit meatier (it should since it's the longest section in Article III). This section details the jurisdiction that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts (none of which existed yet) would have. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, original jurisdiction (cases that would begin in the Supreme Court) would occur only when a case involved an ambassador, public minister, or cases where a state was an involved party. However, the Supreme Court also has appellate jurisdiction (cases that begin in either state or lower federal courts, but are "appealed" and brought to the Supreme Court), but that jurisdiction is subjected to Congressional exceptions. Here, the framers created a check on the power of the courts by allowing Congress to determine the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Finally, Section 3 has little to do with the Supreme Court in particular, but lays out the requirements for someone being charged with treason.
Conclusion
So that was the basic structure of the Supreme Court when the Constitution was ratified. It has evolved a long way since then and will continue to do so. Another small piece of interest is that federal courts are slightly affected by Article II. It is here that the president is granted the power to appoint federal judges with the "advice and consent" of the Senate (majority vote). A little fact, Supreme Court nominations are the most rejected nominations by the Senate. Well, that is the end of the first installment on SCOTUS Review. I plan to next tackle the Judiciary Act of 1789 and cover a little bit more of Congress' use of their ability to grant and strip federal court jurisdiction.
Eric Dietz
The beginning of SCOTUS Review
So the purpose of this blog is essentially to recap and explain the important Supreme Court Cases in U.S. history. I know that sounds like a daunting task, and I have no delusions of the difficulty that this entails. In fact, it is likely impossible to cover even the most important cases in history. However, this is a little project that I've been meaning to take on. I one day hope to make my way into law school or graduate school in the future and I feel that there is at least some merit in doing this. My goal is to update it two to three times a week and to one day start a podcast that follows a similar format. Anyone who is interested in writing for the blog is welcome if it is because they love law or if they are just interested in getting some practice in the areas of research and writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)