add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
United States | United States surgeryplanet.com | Coaching: United States, directory for Coaching/United States healthysense.com | Personal Trainers throughout United States - CFR - Leading Personal... fitnessandresults.com | caregiving travel companion United Kingdom Europe United States of America family-focus-working-care... |
Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. The judicial branch comprises the Supreme Court of the United States and lower courts as created by Congress.
[edit] Section 1: Federal courtsSection 1 vests the judicial power in federal courts, requires a supreme court, allows inferior courts, requires good behavior tenure for judges, and prohibits decreasing the salaries of judges.
[edit] Number of courtsSection 1 explicitly requires "one" Supreme Court, but does not fix the number of justices that must be appointed to it. The number of justices has been fixed by statute, and at present the number is nine: one chief justice and eight associate justices. (Article I of the constitution also provides for some courts. That article is discussed herein for completeness.) Proposals to divide the Supreme Court into the separate panels have been made, but all have failed. Since all such proposals have failed, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such a division. However, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, "the Constitution does not appear to authorize two or more Supreme Courts functioning in effect as separate courts." The Supreme Court is the only federal court that is required explicitly by the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made for the Supreme Court to be the only federal court, having both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. This proposal was rejected in favor of the provision that we have today. Under this provision, the Congress may create inferior courts under both Article III, Section 1, and Article I, Section 8. The Article III courts, which are also known as "constitutional courts," were first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Article I courts, which are also known as "legislative courts," consist of regulatory agencies, such as the United States Tax Court. Article III courts are the only ones with judicial power, and so decisions of regulatory agencies remain subject to review by Article III courts. However, cases not requiring "judicial determination" may come before Article I courts. In the case of Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.[1] (1856), the Supreme Court ruled that cases involving "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty" inherently involve judicial determination and must come before Article III courts. Other cases, such as bankruptcy cases, have been held not to involve judicial determination, and may therefore go before Article I courts. Similarly, several courts in the District of Columbia, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, are Article I courts rather than Article III courts. [edit] TenureThe Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote; this has occurred fourteen times. Three other judges, Mark W. Delahay[2], George W. English[3], and Samuel B. Kent[4] resigned rather than go through the impeachment process. [edit] SalariesThe compensation of judges may not be decreased, but may be increased, during their continuance in office. The Constitution is silent when it comes to judges of courts which have been abolished. The Judiciary Act of 1801 increased the number of courts to permit the Federalist President John Adams to appoint a number of Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. When Jefferson became President, the Congress abolished several of these courts and made no provision for the judges of those courts. The power to abolish a court was next used in 1913, when the Congress abolished the Commerce Court. In that case, however, Congress transferred the judges of the Commerce Court to the Circuit Courts. [edit] Section 2: Federal jurisdiction and trial by jurySection 2 specifies the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts and requires trial by jury in all criminal cases, except impeachment cases.
[edit] Subject-matter jurisdictionFederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and not courts of general jurisdiction. Courts of limited jurisdiction can hear and decide cases that involve only certain subject matter. This limited subject-matter jurisdiction extends to:
Article Three is not self-executing concerning the subject-matter over which federal courts can have jurisdiction. The Congress decides, from the subject-matter specified in Article Three, what jurisdiction the federal courts will have. [edit] Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign ImmunityMain articles: Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and Sovereign Immunity#State sovereign immunity In Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793),[5] the Supreme Court held that states were not immune from lawsuits by individuals due to the Supreme Court's Article III jurisdiction over them. Effectively reversing this judgment, the Eleventh Amendment was passed to prevent a state from being sued in a federal court. [edit] Cases and controversiesOnly actual cases and controversies may be heard by the federal courts; the judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are precluded because of problems with standing, mootness, or ripeness. Generally, a case or controversy requires the presence of adverse parties who have some interest genuinely at stake in the case. In Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), the Supreme Court denied jurisdiction to cases brought under a statute permitting certain Native Americans to bring suit against the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law allocating tribal lands. Counsel for both sides were to be paid from the federal Treasury. The Supreme Court held that, though the United States was a defendant, the case in question was not an actual controversy; rather, the statute was merely devised to test the constitutionality of a certain type of legislation. Thus the Court's ruling would be nothing more than an advisory opinion; therefore, the court dismissed the suit for failing to present a "case or controversy." [edit] Original and appellate jurisdictionSee also: Jurisdiction stripping Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and controversies in which a state is a party. In other cases, the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction, which may be regulated by the Congress. The Congress may not, however, amend the Court's original jurisdiction, as was found in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) (the same decision which established the principle of judicial review). Marbury held that Congress can neither expand nor restrict the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is different. The court's appellate jurisdction is subject to such "Regulations as the Congress shall make." This power of Congress has rarely been exercised, except to refine the procedures for obtaining Court review of lower court decisions; over the years the trend has been for Congress to allow the Court maximum discretion in deciding whether to accept or reject a case. [edit] Judicial reviewMain article: Judicial review Main article: Judicial review in the United States No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review, but the Framers did contemplate the idea. Alexander Hamilton wrote,
 Others, however, disagreed, claiming that each branch could determine for itself the constitutionality of its actions. Marbury v. Madison involved a highly partisan set of circumstances. Though Congressional elections were held in November 1800, the newly elected officers did not take power until March. The Federalist Party had lost the elections. In the words of President Thomas Jefferson, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold". In the four months following the elections, the outgoing Congress created several new judgeships, which were filled by President John Adams. In the last-minute rush, however, Federalist Secretary of State John Marshall had neglected to deliver commissions to the appointees. When James Madison took office as Secretary of State, several commissions remained undelivered. Bringing their claims under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the appointees, including William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus, which in English law had been used to force public officials to fulfill their ministerial duties. Here, Madison would be required to deliver the commissions. Marbury posed a difficult problem for the court, which was led by now-Chief Justice John Marshall, the same person who had neglected to deliver the commissions when he was Secretary of State. If Marshall's court commanded James Madison to deliver the commissions, Madison might ignore the order, thereby indicating the weakness of the court. Similarly, if the court denied William Marbury's request, the court would be seen as weak. Marshall held that appointee Marbury was indeed entitled to his commission. However, Marshall continued that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, as it purported to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases not involving states or ambassadors. The ruling thereby established that the federal courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch. [edit] Trial by juryArticle III, Section 2, provides that crimes, except impeachment cases, must be tried before a jury. The trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress. The Sixth Amendment has related provisions. The trial must be held in the "State and district" where the crime was committed and the district is set by Congress. The Sixth Amendment also contains other guarantees not related to the place of the trial. The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. [7] [edit] Section 3: TreasonSection 3 defines treason and its punishment.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war". Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort, which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause. Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older British law, the Treason Act 1695. In Cramer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that "every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses." In Haupt v. United States, however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example). Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted. [edit] References
[edit] Bibliography
[edit] External links
|
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
