Dual Court System Essay

The Judicial branch is the court system that interprets the laws in route to being passed. In the United States, the judicial branch of government incorporates the Supreme Court and the lower courts which are made up by members of Congress. Article 3 describes the Judicial Branch and how the Judicial system includes one supreme court. When there is a case that is really important and they cannot agree upon a single decision, then the case is passed on to the supreme court.

The judicial branch, or the judiciary, is basically the court system for the United States. Their main purpose is to make sure all laws passed are in accordance with the Constitution, and to resolve any disagreements. The decisions in the courtroom are either ruled constitutional or unconstitutional. They also have judicial review which is the ability to declare laws unconstitutional. The head of the judiciary is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is made up of nine judges, one of which is called the chief justice. The judges are appointed by the President and supported by the Senate if they are in agreement. These judges do not

Marbury v. Madison, one of the first Supreme Court cases asserting the power of judicial review, is an effective argument for this power; however, it lacks direct textual basis for the decision. John Marshall managed to get away with this deficiency because of the silence on many issues and the vague wording of the Constitution. Marshall was also the first to interpret the

The dual court system differentiates between the state and federal court systems. The federal court system was established in accordance with constitutional law, which allows Congress to ordain federal courts that are separate from and external to the Supreme Court but which also deal with federal legal matters. These separate federal courts are referred to as "inferior courts," in relation to their position in the hierarchy with the Supreme Court at the summit. Each of the inferior courts established by Congress has a specific and unique jurisdiction.

To conclude, the Marbury v. Madison case has greatly impacted the way the Supreme Court makes decisions. Marbury v. Madison had incorporated the process of Judicial review, which allows courts to review the laws to see if they are being violated. Judicial review was utilized in countless cases, such as, Cohens v. Virginia, Ladue v. Gilleo, and McCulloch v. Maryland. To this day, the Supreme Court has utilized the Marbury v. Madison decision as a model for future

The dual court system permits the federal administration restricted access into each jurisdiction problems and state law is not allowed to be involved in the federal judicial system, without there being some type of encounter at the state or federal stages. Federal courts have the authority to resolve only the cases in which the Constitution allows them to have power over. These types of courts are to be found in the bigger only; specific cases are allowed to be received within the federal courts. For instances, the cases that are allowed to be viewed in the federal courts are cases that include the United States government and other officers that are being sued. The dual court system is not the only part of the story, each level there is a different court chain of command. States often have limited jurisdiction courts, such as traffic courts, trial courts and appellate courts, and supreme courts (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2011). Each trial court adjudicates different offenses. Appellate courts consider different matters depending on where they lie in the court hierarchy. Appeals from state courts can sometimes be heard in the federal courts. Higher-level courts can control the actions and decisions of lower courts, but not the other way around. Despite the apparent complexity, each court has its place. The main focus of the court system is to uphold the law, protect citizens and their rights and resolving

The judicial branch of U.S. government is comprised of the court system; their task is to resolve legal issues and interpret the law.

The American concept of democracy provides that no branch of government shall be more powerful and uncontrolled than the other branches (Lutzenberger, 2012). Judicial review is the power of the courts to oversee and prevent the legislative and executive branches from becoming abusive. Through this power, the courts interpret the meaning of laws and their application. They can invalidate a law, which they deem inconsistent with the US Constitution. They can also change the application of the law when interpreting it. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention this power, the courts infer it from the provisions on the judicial branch in the Constitution. This inference was first made in 1803 in the Marbury v Madison case. The court declared the existence of the power and that it was for the exclusive use of the courts. They use it to interpret the intents of the Constitution on legal issues submitted to them for decision (Lutzenberger).

The United States government consists of three main branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Within the contents of this essay, the judicial branch will be examined. The judicial branch of the United States government oversees justice throughout the country by expounding and applying laws by means of a court system.1 This system functions by hearing and determining the legality of such cases.2 Sitting at the top of the United States court system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States encompasses the federal judiciary, explicitly the judicial branch. This court is comprised of life-long serving Justices who are selected by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.3 Cooperatively,

The concept of Judicial Review is to review cases using the power of the courts over the actions of the executive and legislative branches to deem them invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has a unique position because of its broad commitment to the American People and its Constitution. The Court's principles on judicial review are that The Constitution is the supreme law of the country, they have ultimate authority on constitutional matters, and they must vote against any law that clashes with the constitution. One of the most significant cases that brought forth such convictions was the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Which was a case that brought many complications because when Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State James

On February 24, 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court decided on the seemingly insignificant case of Marbury v. Madison. While ruling the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, Judicial Review was established. Granting the Supreme Court the power to rule acts of the Legislative and/or Executive Branch of government unconstitutional, hence serving as a landmark case that further legitimatized the Judicial Branch as a separate, but balanced branch of government. Marbury v. Madison has been used as a very important precedent throughout our history with 165 acts of Congress deemed unconstitutional as of 2010.

However in the United States we have what is referred to as a dual court system. A dual court system can be defined as a judicial system comprising federal- and state- level judicial systems. A dual court system separates federal and state courts. According to the book a dual court system is advantageous and desirable because it is parallel to federalism. Federalism is a system of government where power is constitutionally divided between central governing body and various constituent units. In the United States, the federal government makes laws, but federalism also gives the state’s power to make their own laws (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worral, 2011). The Founding fathers saw it as a way to serve as check on an abusive or tyrannical government.

Judicial Restraint- A legal term that describes a type of judicial interpretation that emphasizes the limited nature of the court's power. Judicial restraint asks judges to base their judicial decisions solely on the concept of stare decisis.

The debate between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint really grabbed my attention. Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint are two different ways to interpret the constitution and its laws. Both interpretations have their own strengths and weaknesses, which is why it is so hard to come to a final decision of which is acceptable and which is not (in most cases). While at the debate I didn’t realize how many cases have boiled down to these two concepts. There have been many cases ended up being decided by both interpretations.

There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.