Founders of the United States of America believed in providing the people of this great nation with a fair, and impartial judicial system. The basic rights of the people, which are listed in the Bill of Rights, needed to be respected and protected by the government. Abraham Lincoln once said “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth”. Every part of the United States government has a duty to protect the people that gave the government power, and one organization in particular plays a very large role in this charge. The Judicial System of the United States America is a complex organization constructed to uphold the authority of the Constitution, and federal law. The judges within the judicial system must uphold an honest, and fair regiment when attempting to define justice during a case in any of the different courts; without this, the rights guaranteed to the people would be voided of any value and the judicial system, or the judges in particular, would fail to meet the duties they are charged with. Judges are government officials who must follow strict principles and rules in order to justly uphold the constitution, and the laws of the U.S., and when these officials do not, they must be punished to prevent further misconduct from occurring.
The United States Judicial system consists of two different types of courts, federal and state courts. The federal courts are separate from the state courts, or a dual court system, both differing in function, size, and significance (Neubauer, 2010). The majority of courts are trial courts, the courts in which trials are held by a judge, and consist of lawyers, defendants, victims, witnesses, and all the other typical court room players. ...
... middle of paper ...
..., H. (2010). America's courts and the criminal justice system. (10 ed.). Belmont: Cengage Learning.
U.S. Judicial Branch, Office of the U.S. Courts. (2008, March). Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/ viewer.aspx? doc=uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/Misconduct/j ud_conduct_and_disability_308_app_B_rev.pdf
U.S. Judicial Branch, Office of the U.S. Courts. (2009, June). Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/ Code/ConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx
Volcansek, M. (1948). Judicial misconduct: A cross-national comparision. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QKFkCZXpEpcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq="judicial misconduct"&ots=OqktAsGlh7&sig=8LZ1R1-HdX8xJ-bdoYaYWilTC7Y
In Federalist no. 78 Hamilton explains the powers and duties of the judiciary department as developed in Article III of the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution is very vague on the structure of the federal courts. Hamilton had to convince Americans that the federal courts would not run amok. He presented that the federal courts would not have unlimited power but that they would play a vital role in the constitutional government. Hamilton limited judiciary power by defining it as a text-bound interpretative power. (R.B Bernstein) This essay was intended to endorse as well as interpret the Constitution.
It is simple to be confused by the federal court judges and their decisions and how they go about them and how they are in their position. Personally, I always thought they were elected by the Supreme Court or someone or something higher than them. But I was very surprised to know that they were appointed (assigned a job or role to). This leaves the judges from having to go through a process of campaigning and running against others. Although by being unelected officials it has both pros and cons. Pros being, that they are trusted enough to handle cases that go to this point and being able to make a decision under the law to better the society. Cons being, if a federal court judge makes any misdemeanor or crime they have the ability to be impeached
Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America? Is a conglomeration of articles and short essays that attempts to expose the federal court’s relatively recent intrusion into our way of life by way of immoral legislative influence; made possible by presidents, congressmen, and apathetic voters who have relinquished their consent without contest. The author, Mark I. Sutherland and his associates believe that the Constitution’s system of checks and balances between the three branches of government has been usurped by an overreaching, immoral federal court system. The book explores how Judges have been influencing and shaping social and political policy for years by legislating from the judicial bench. In short, Americans have exchanged the rule of law for the rule by the judges. However, it does a poor job in addressing other major issues concerning the federal court system as a whole.
The Constitution was the first stepping stone in the national sovereignty of the United States. It is the supreme law that has been valued and upheld since its ratification in 1787. It holds the rights and freedoms of all Americans and gives structure to the government. To uphold this structure, the judiciary branch was established, alongside the legislative and executive, by the Constitution. However, the judicial branch did not always have the power and influence it does today. Because of the 4th Chief Justice, John Marshall, the Supreme Court eventually gained the power and ability to become coequal to the legislative and executive branches. John Marshall’s establishment of Judicial Review in the Supreme Court and his strong federalists
People have always been concerned about our judicial system making massive decisions in an undemocratic manner and while there are parts of our nation’s history (Jost). There have been decisions that were dreadful for our nation, Dred Scott v. Sandford; but there are decisions that everyone can agree with in retrospect, Brown v. Board of Education. Also, there are decisions that still divide us as a nation, Bush v. Gore and Roe V. Wade. There are a lot of issues that come from our current judicial system; however, I understand that the problems that come from it are not going to come from any quick fix, and we may have to live with some of them. Looking at the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government, I believe it needs to be limited in its judicial review power, but have certain exceptions where necessary in some cases.
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 life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
In response, the court system for many years has tried to formulate the policies that will address the issue of public confidence. In the Roberts’ article, it is suggested that even though a slight majority of Canadians have trust in the justice system, the citizens seem to have more faith in institutions other than in the courts (159). This difference is mainly because of the perception that the public has on the justice system in regards to its practices (Roberts 164). The public appears dissatisfied with some practices of the court leading to decreased confidence in the system. For instance, most Canadians feel that the justice system failed to reduce crime in the country. Instead, they argue that it is among the primary causes of increased crime rate (Roberts 164). Most citizens claim that allowing a guilty person walk free is worse off when compared to convicting an innocent one (Roberts 171). Boosting public confidence is, thus, critical to improving the criminal judge. Apparently, this can be accomplished as mentioned by Anthony N. Doob in the article, increased engagement of an ordinary citizen in the courts is needed,
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...
First, according to justice.gov, “The federal court system has three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States.” The courts all have a different role to play in the judicial system. Court systems exist to provide justice for all. Now, the district court system is the beginning of the judicial system. A good amount of the cases handled by the district court system are either criminal or civil trial cases.
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 court system is composed of lawyers, judges, and juries. Their job is to ensure that everyone receives a fair trial, determine guilt or innocence, and apply sentences to guilty parties. The court system will contain one judge, and a jury of twelve citizens. The jury of the court will determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. The jury will also recommend a sentence for the crime the individual committed.
Koerner, Brendan. "When Do Judges Sequester Juries?" Slate Magazine. The Slate Group, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
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.
ruled by a similar group to that of our Supreme Court because, the members of