“That’s against the law!” But which law? There are two types of judicial system in the United States, which are the Federal and the States. In the article,” Federal vs. State courts-Key Differences” Federal judicial center stated that federal courts recognized under the U.S Constitution to decide to quarrel involving the Constitution and laws that passed by the Congress. While State courts recognized by a state within local courts such as cities, counties, and municipalities. Although federal law is effective throughout the United States, different states have different state laws. Through this essay, I will discuss the differences and similarities between federal and California judicial system. Under the U.S Constitution, there are Whenever a law case is issued, Trial Courts are always the first court people would have to go through. The U.S. District Courts are the Federal Trial Courts. As the lowest level of the Federal Court System, The U.S. District Courts take care of most of the Federal cases. The State of California courts is called the Superior Courts. Similar to the U.S. District Courts, Superior Courts heard most of the State cases (Superior Court of California). The similarities between Federal and California Trial Courts are that they both take care of civil and criminal cases. However, the U.S. District Courts are required to handle these two special cases which are the cases from the Court of International Trade and U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In addition, every district with Federal district courts also has one U.S. bankruptcy court. California Superior Courts, in contract, take care of "appeals of small claims cases and other civil cases worth $25,000 or less and appeals of misdemeanor cases" (Superior Court of An example can be found where a citizen violated the state law and was sued by the state government. However, if the violation was not prohibited and enforced under the Federal Constitution, he or she could use it as their defense and win the case because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This should not encourage anyone to challenge the laws because the example above does not happen a lot of times in our daily life. In addition, laws which are illegal are usually enforced under both federal and state laws (Federal Judicial Center). In conclusion, I have provided the similarities and differences between federal and California judicial system, in which I have compared all three different types of court systems, jurisdiction and the differences between state law and federal constitution. I am blessed to have this opportunity to research on this topic because I was not aware nor acknowledge these similarities and differences. Because of this assignment, I have expanded my knowledge on this subject and I believe this will greatly help me in the
In the case of Affleck and Damon v. Booth the primary nature of the case was in regards to their fourth amendment rights being broken; no probable cause for Booth and others to search and maintain their assets in the state of Georgia. In the District court, the ruling past onto both parties was that the case was dismissed due to Booth having no personal jurisdiction in the state of Nevada. This therefore was passed up to the Circuit court of Appeals whom overturned the lower courts decision based on the factors of the case encompassed more than the initial seizure. As both parties are not in agreement with where the trial shall be held the Supreme Court now will make a final decision based on issues to be ruled upon, material facts, and legal principles in practice.
among the nation's founders about the need for individual states to retain significant legislative authority and judicial autonomy separate from federal control. The reason why we have a dual-court system is, back then; new states joining the union were assured of limited federal intervention into local affairs. The state legislatures were free to create laws, and state court systems were needed to hear cases in which violations of those laws occurred. Today, however, state courts do not hear cases involving alleged violations of federal law, nor do federal courts involve themselves in deciding issues of state law unless there is a conflict between local or state statues and federal constitutional guarantees. When that happens, claimed violations of federal due process guarantees especially those found in the Bill of Rights.
The two documents contain very general similarities. They both have a bicameral legislature, which means that they have two chambers or houses. They also both have a Bill of Rights which showcases the rights that the citizens have. Like the U.S. government, the Californian government also has a legislative, executive, and judicial branch where, in short, the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch carries out the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws, among other things. In order for both governments to run smoothly, California was influenced by the federal system of checks and balances, meaning that no single branch of government can become too powerful. In addition, the state governor has similar duties to the president such as serving as commander in chief of a militia and having the supreme executive power (Cal. Const. art. V, § 1&7). Although, within the similarities, many differences can be noted between the two documents, ranging from minor differences to major differences.
The book, No Matter How Loud I Shout, takes an in-depth look at the juvenile court system in the state of California in the 1990s. Through a colorful narrative story the author, Edward Humes, paints of vivid picture of the how dysfunctional the system truly was. The main focus is on the various ways the system has failed many of the juveniles that it is intended to help. Peggy Beckstrand, the Deputy District Attorney, says it best “The first thing you learn about this place, is that nothing works.” (No Matter How Loud I Shout, 1996, p.31)
How are federal courts of general jurisdiction different from state courts of general jurisdiction? State courts deal with every day cases dealing with state laws and regulations. They can vary from criminal procedures in civil or family cases, to lower offenses, such as parking tickets. They tend to be specific to the laws of each state, as the state is allowed to form their own set of laws to keep their residents “free and treat them equally”. Federal courts on the other hand, hear criminal that violate the US Constitution and/or cases that cross state lines , along with civil cases or bankruptcy cases. Both courts have appellate courts and interprets the laws (either state or federal laws). Federal court is more selective on the cases it
The opposing argument serves as a perfect gateway to the topic of relationship between Federal and State government. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause serves...
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
The judges that are a part of this group has many different roles, some of which are to issues warrants, making a determination of probable cause in evidence, denying or granting bail to offenders, overseeing trials, making rulings on different motions and even overseeing hearings. The prosecuting attorney is the one who will represent that state in c...
In 1822, Stephen F. Austin established one of the first courts in Texas and appointed a provisional justice of peace. Since Texas was a part of Mexico at the time, the Mexican governor replaced the justice of peace with three elected officials. (Utexas) Soon after Independence, the republic of Texas under the 1836 Constitution, established a supreme court and allowed Congress to create inferior courts. Judges in such courts were to be elected by Congress. Counties, at the time, had County and Justice of Peace courts, whose judges were popularly elected. With the entrance of Texas into the Union and the adoption of numerous constitutions during the period, Texas retained a similar judicial structure. The current 1876 Constitution created a Supreme Court with appellate civil jurisdiction, the court of appeals, a large number of district, county and justice of peace courts and authorized the legislature to create further courts as necessary. Overtime, the legislature added a number of layers to the judicial system creating a vast and complex judicial system with numerous overlapping jurisdictions between courts. Due to the complicated nature of the current judicial system in Texas, this paper will start by giving a brief explanation of the structure of the current judicial system in Texas and will move on by identifying some strengths and weaknesses in the current system and the need for reforms, present numerous proposed reforms and analyzes why the proposed reforms failed.
6. Neubauer, D.W. (2002). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth: Thomson Learning.
The US court system consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The trial court is the first to hear the facts of a case and has original jurisdiction. The appellate court hears cases whose resolution is disputed by the losing party in the trial court. The supreme or high court hears cases whose outcome is disputed by the losing party in the appellate court. The supreme or high court chooses which cases warrant a hearing. The federal and the state court system have the same basic structure. Each consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The Federal Court of Appeals has thirteen (13) circuits which cover most states except the District of Columbia. The federal system also has specialty courts such as the Court of Federal Claims and the United States Tax Court.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2011). America’s courts and the criminal justice system (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
Where the Magistrates Court, Crown Court and the County Court are considered as inferior courts; both civil and criminal divisions of courts have little difference. The court hearing first instance of a criminal case is the Magistrates Court. However, when there is a case concerning on a more serious criminal offence, the case would be first heard in the Crown Court instead. First instance of civil cases are usually tried in the Magistrates Court and rarely in the County Court.