Controversy: The Judicial Power

1) Since the injured plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, why is Ford being sued for failing to test the seatbelt sleeve?

As Privy Council held in the case of "Wagon Mound (No 1)" that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant should not be responsible for losses that are ‘too remote’ from the breach. It is obviously that the university could foresee that Brad have to quit his job to finish the degree and also need to pay for the fees.

The supreme court is the highest, most important court in the United States and the titles of the men and women who serve on the high court are associate justices. There are over nine judges who are on the supreme court, eight are associate justices and one is the chief justice. They are all appointed by the presidet but they are approved by the senate. The term of office for the nine judges who serve for the high court is for life. There are over 91 district courts, which are the lowest courts, and 12 appellate courts. Three courts that are part of the federal judicial system are the Court of Military Appeals, United States Claims Court, and United States Tax Court. The nine type of cases the Supreme court and federal courts have jurisdiction over are the constitution, federal laws, treaties, law governing ships, the United States government itself, ambassadors or public ministers, two or more state governents, citizens od different states and a state or its citizens versus a foreign country or foreign citizen. The process of checking the laws of our land is called the judicial review. When the supreme court declares a law unconstitutional, it means that the law goes against the constitution of the United States. In order for a person to be convicted of treason two witnessess must testify, telling the exact same story and/or the accused must confess in a

The Poor Law The Poor Law was a system established since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, about two hundred years before the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. In this system the able-bodied poor should be set to work, whilst the others had to be provided for by their parish of birth. By 1795 when the whole system was under strain, an attempted solution was the Speenhamland system also know as the allowance system that was devised in 1795.

The U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court are governed by Article III of the US Constitution. They also include two special courts: (a) the U.S. Court of Claims and (b) the U.S. Court of International Trade. Often times than not the two

A state court may respond in various ways to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that raises issues of federal

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal

Established in 1789, the Supreme Court was created to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and to use that interpretation to declare any actions of the Legislative or Executive Branches unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court was capable of also acquiring more functions as evidence of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The case dealt with President John Adams appointing sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Colombia. Adams appointed these justices so that his political party would have more justices than the rival party. Problematically, the appointment letters were not delivered by the end of his term. By that basis, President Thomas Jefferson annulled the appointments because he retained the right to appoint the justices during his time of jurisdiction. Consequently, this aggravated the appointed justice and therefore one of the justices named William Marbury filed a case in the Supreme Court over the commissions that they were promised (Goldstone). The Court ruled that Marbury did have a right to commission and also with it made a statement that enacted the doctrine of Judicial Review. This meant that the court had the "right to review, and possibly nullify, laws and governmental acts that violate the constitution. Judicial Review is a means of assuring that politicians and various other leaders adhere to the constitution and do not use powers granted to them by

In the Constitution, Article III establishes the federal judiciary. The section states, “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” (“Supreme Court”). The responsibility of the Supreme Court is to balance the powers in each branch of government as well as protect civil rights and liberties by ruling laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional. The elite cases the Supreme Court decide to rule on can be to protect the civil rights and liberties of citizens by referring to the Constitution and the rights it entails. Since this court is the highest power in the judicial system, it is the final stop and last resort for those seeking justice.

Sec. 3 Equal Rights is a civil liberty. The third section of the Texas Constitution is based on equal protection against government discrimination among men (sex, race, color, creed or national origin). In this case the government cannot take away citizens’ rights. The first amendment of the Bills of Rights gives people the right to practice any religion they chose to and government is prohibit to interfere in a person’s beliefs. In past court cases that freedom of religion was addressed dealing with the exclusion of prayers in public schools, the prohibition of polygamy, and the limitation of the use of drugs or snakes in religious rituals.

The Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.

Is there structural inequality in the criminal justice system? When we watch the news or read our newspapers, we can see that most of the criminals portrayed are of African American or Hispanic descent. Being a fan of true crime novels, they even depict more Black male criminals than White males. Are African American males committing more crimes than White males? What factors are involved for Blacks to be more involved in crime? How do African American stereotypes play a role with possible racial profiling from the policing force? Are Blacks treated fairly in the criminal justice system? After much research, I hope to answer these questions and determine if African Americans

The Merriam-Webster dictionary’s simple definition of justice is ‘1. The process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals. 2. A judge in a court of law’ (Merriam-Webster). This definition focuses solely on legal justice which is the common definition of justice. However, this definition leaves out social, moral/ethical, and vigilante justice. These subsections of justice are important as they relate to justice in an individual rather than in a legal system. I think that these definitions of justice need to be included to fully explain the concept of justice. However, it is hard to define a concept due to the wide variety of definitions different people have. An individual’s definition of justice can be completely different to another person’s as everyone has different values and morals depending on how they were brought up. An individual’s environment growing up can influence how they see justice. Differences in opinion can be due to religion, family, or the country an individual lives in. An example is that ‘[p]ublic displays of affection—kissing, hugging, holding hands’ is illegal in the United Arab Emirates whereas it is not in the United States (Middleton). The most important subsection of justice is the legal side of justice because this helps contribute to people living peacefully together. However, legal justice contains many faults which cause injustice to prevail whilst justice is not fulfilled.

Marbury, of course, stands only for the proposition that judges can declare acts of Congress invalid. In subsequent cases Marshall asserted that judges could also declare invalid executive orders or actions (Little v. Barreme, 1804 ) and upheld the Judiciary Act of 1789, under which Congress gave the Supreme Cour power to review and reserve decisions upholding the constitutionality of state statutes (Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1816;Cohens v. Virginia, 1821). Taken collectively, these cases provide federal judges with impressive tools for monitoring governmental actions, tools that they have not always been hesitant to use. Through the end of the 1990s, the Supreme Court has invalidated nearly 140 federal statutes and some 1,200 local laws . State courts too, with their own power to strike down acts passed within their jurisdiction, are active monitors of their governments. One scholar estimates that state justices invalidate nearly 25 percent of all laws challenged in their court rooms.