Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Chapter 18 Presentation
Transcript of Chapter 18 Presentation
Standard 16 History of the National Judiciary How did John Marshall strengthen the Supreme Court? Standard 16: The student will demonstrate knowledge of the operation of the federal judiciary.
a. Explain the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the state courts
b. Examine how John Marshall established the Supreme Court as an independent, coequal branch of government through his opinions in Marbury vs. Madison.
c. Describe how the Supreme Court decides cases.
d. Compare the philosophies of judicial activism and judicial restraint. While the Articles of Confederation were in force in 1781 until 1789 there was no national courts and no national judiciary .
Alexander Hamilton argued the need for a national court system, he also stated that " Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation."
The Framers created a national judiciary for the United States in a single sentence in the Constitution. Federal Courts vs. State Courts Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction of State Courts Scenario: Bobby Bobby robs a bank in Florida. Bank robbery violates a federal law, regardless of the State in which the crime is committed. Scenario: Whitney Whitney of Illinios has her car repaired at BJ's, the local repair shop. Her car breaks down on her way home. She sues the repair shop for breach of contract . Why would it be at State Court case?? A purely local matter. Nothing in the facts of the case support federal court jurisdiction. Why would it be a Federal Court case?? "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"
-Article III, Section 1 Chief Justice Marshall claimed for the Supreme Court the right to declare acts were unconstitutional , so Marshall laid the foundation fo rthe judicial branch' skey role in the development of the American system of government.
Marshall first eliminated the Supreme Court tradition of issuing per seriatim opinions, a practice where each justice issued his or her own legal justification for the Court's decision, and replaced it with a single opinion of the Court, usually written by Marshall himself. This allowed the Supreme Court to project unity and assert greater authority. Marbury v. Madison, represented the first time the US Supreme Court declared an Act of Congress unconstitutional, and clearly affirmed the right of judicial review, the Court's authority to evaluate laws in terms of constitutionality and nullify anything they found unconstitutional. Judicial review is the Supreme Court's primary power, and the foundation upon which the Judicial branch rests. The Supreme Court reviews all the case files from the lower courts since they can only consider information from the lower courts.
The case is argued to the Supreme Court by lawyers representing both sides of the case. The justices then discuss the case amongst themselves at conference, and can recall the lawyers who argued the case to present further questions. When the justices have settled their minds, they take a vote to decide the case. The side with the majority of votes is taken to be the ruling of the Court. The Justices' opinions must then be written.
The Chief Justice has the option to write the majority opinion if he (or she) has voted for the majority side. The majority opinion is considered the legally-binding opinion Steps to how the Supreme Court decides cases! If the Chief Justice does not wish to write the opinion, he can decline and appoint another justice as author. Opinions are typically written for the majority (the side receiving the most votes), and the minority (the side receiving fewer votes) often offers a dissenting opinion or opinions. Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism Its proponents think that judges should indeed consider precedent, but they should also be willing to go further and play an active, creative role in the shaping of public policies. Judicial Restraint Its proponents believe that judges should consistently follow the letter of the law and apply precedent. Judicial Activism