Higher Courts Ensure Federal Laws Among All States

The problem that we have is that sometimes-federal law and state laws are in conflict and are in direct opposition

In the United States Constitution it is stated that “No single section of the constitution deals with federalism. Instead, the provisions dividing power between the states and the national government appear throughout the constitution. Most of the constitution is concerned with establishing the powers of the national government. National power is also based on the supremacy clause of article VI, which says that the constitution and laws made in accordance with it are “the supreme law of the land”. This means that when national and state laws conflict, the national laws will be followed. Article I, section 9 limits the power of the national government over individuals. The tenth amendment the constitution also limits the state powers in Article I, section10 and denies the states certain powers” (Keeping the

One reason I believe the states should have the power to do what they think is best for their states right now was because these official are in this state and know what the people want and what they need in the state. See these political offical hear what the people want unlike right now the government tries to do what is best for all the people but some of it affects other states. If the states had the power to decide then all the states would be better and more prosperous. There have been case where the federal government has bullied the states into changing their mind to what they want. Such as in Louisiana they officials wanted to change the legal; drinking age to 18 years old because it

The United States government system is very interesting and complexly designed. The state and federal government is a mirror of each other when it comes to the generics of the executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch, however, internally the state government has major differences on how the branches are conducted. Throughout this paper we will discuss the greatest difference between state and federal, which is the state cannot change or remove laws passed by the federal government but they could change how they execute the federal laws to their liking as long as it is constitutional.

With each state having its own government, disputes arose between individual states. A Federal court system was important and was greatly needed to settle the disputes. States often fought over trade and power. A federal court that controlled all of the states would have helped tremendously. If all the states followed the same rules and had the same federal court, they would have all been

The difference between federal courts and State courts is that State courts are usually established by a state themselves and Federal courts are established under the U.S. Constitution to decide disputes involving the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.

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 Supreme Court often oversteps its perceived legal sovereignty when using judicial review. Article III of the Constitution solely vests the courts the “judicial power of the United States” never mentioning the power of judicial review. The judiciary’s duty, according to the law of the land, is “to interpret the laws, not scan the authority of the lawgiver” (Gibson, J.). The judiciary has not followed a strict interpretation of the constitution; rather, it has encroached on the power of the legislative branch and the sanctity of the separation of powers. If the Constitution “were to come into collision with an act of the legislature” (Gibson, J.), the Constitution would take precedent, but it is

Article III, Section II of The Constitution states, “In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers or Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction…” The Supreme Court is where the nation’s most controversial cases end up, and where decisions that impact the future of America are made. Every year, only about 80 cases are heard by the Supreme Court (“U.S. Supreme Court,” 2016). Each case meets a set of four criteria, all of which must be met in order to be considered by the Supreme Court justices. The first, and most important, criteria is a circuit split. This means that there was a serious conflict of law in the lower courts and the Supreme Court feels that this case is detrimental to the law (“Supreme Court Criteria,” 2016). The second of the four is that it must be a highly important case to the American future, such as U.S. v. Nixon on the Watergate scandal, Roe v. Wade on abortion, and Bush v. Gore on the close presidential race of 2000. The third requirement is that a justice is relatively interested in the case. They want the controversial, detrimental cases that will be ambitious. The case is to be highly considered if in the lower courts, a supreme court decision that has already been decided upon was denied. (“How Does the U.S.,” 2013). If all four criteria are met, then the case is fair game in the eyes of the Supreme Court justices.

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

Compare and contrast the California and US federal judicial systems in as many ways as you can.

The Supreme Court, which is often referred to as the Court of last resort,” is the highest court within our court system. Only an original ruling by the Supreme Court can change a pre-existing one. They have the authority to decide appeals on all cases taken to federal court or those that have been brought to a state court that handles federal law. Once one of the circuit courts have made a decision on a case, all parties involved in the case can choose to appeal their case to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can decide whether or not to hear a case as where the circuit courts can not . The parties involved in the case are required to petition the court. If the petition is granted, the circuit courts will take briefings and hear arguments. If the petition is not granted, the lower court's judgment stands. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in a case. The Supreme Court oversees many types of cases such as most cases involving federal laws or regulations, international and interstate commerce, and cases involving commodaties and securities, to name a few. Where a case was filed depends on the avennue it would take in order to reach the Supreme Court. A Case can start in either the Superior Court or District Court. Cases wouls start in the district court if they involve

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.

The California and Federal judicial systems are very similar in how they are designed and how they function. California state courts are established and primarily obtain their power from the California State Constitution. This is similar to federal judicial system in that federal courts derive their power from the United States Constitution. The following paper will compare and contrast the extreme similarities between both judicial systems as well as some of the distinct differences.

Judge Moore went on to elaborate that there are two, not one, judicial system. Federal and state courts exist in close proximity and both are to follow the United States Constitution (Eastman, 2015). Article VI of the Constitution clarifies this stating “All…judicial Officer, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution (Cornell University, n.d.).” Moore