What are the constitutional powers of the Supreme Court? (Video) Constitutional powers of the Supreme Court; issues regarding scope of power and lifetime terms; original and appellate jurisdiction; Marbury v. Madison; Congressional control over the extent of appellate jurisdiction; writs of certiorari; political considerations by the Supreme Court; issue of conflicting circuit court opinions; goal of uniformity; decisions regarding individual rights. Student Questions: Unit 4, Lesson 25, Sections 1-3 (pdf download) What methods are used to interpret the Constitution? (Video)Advantages and disadvantages of four common methods of interpreting the Constitution: textualism, originalism, fundamental principles, and modernism or instrumentalism (living Constitution); importance of written opinions. What checks exist on the power of the Supreme Court? (Video)Checks on the powers of the Supreme Court; maintaining the integrity of the Court; influence of presidential appointments; enforcement of Court decisions; Congressional capacity to limit power of the Court; federalism and the implementation of Supreme Court decisions; justifications given for limited terms for Supreme Court justices. The Importance of the Supreme Court (Video)An video discussion of the importance of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court (Video)Hear the basics about our Supreme Court from the 2 Teachers. Chief Justice Roberts on Oral Argument (Video)Chief Justice John Roberts talks about his experiences of being nervous when he was an attorney and argued cases in front of the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia on Judges (Video)Associate Justice Antonin Scalia advises people not to judge judges unless you have studied the cases that they have. Excerpts from Interviews with Supreme Court Justices (Video)Various excerpts of Supreme Court Justices being interviewed by C-SPAN. Inside the Supreme Court (Video)Kate Bolduan (CNN) takes a rare peek at what lies behind the walls of the Supreme Court. Interpreting the Constitution in Modern Day America (Video)Dr. Lindsay Robertson outlines two of the most prominent modern theories of constitutional interpretation: Originalism and the Living Constitution. John Roberts: Supreme Court Nomination Hearings (Video)This video from PBS NewsHour documents the Senate confirmation hearing for John Roberts, who was later confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States. The Courts: Our Rule of Law (Video)A video about the role of courts in the American system of government. From Annenberg Media's Learner.org website. The Constitution: Fixed or Flexible? (Video)A video that examines whether the Constitution should be interpreted to meet the changing needs of the country. From Annenberg Media's Learner.org website. Judicial Review: Constitutional Interpretation (Video)Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Antonin Scalia discuss their different theories of how to interpret the Constitution. Justice Scalia describes his textualist, strict constructionist philosophy while Justice Breyer explains his developmentalist, evolutionist philosophy. (37 min). Video from Annenberg Classroom. Our Constitution: A Conversation (Video)In this video, Supreme Court justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer discuss the importance of the Constitution and explain several basic principles of American constitutionalism. They answer student questions about separation of powers, the Court's modern relevance, federalism, liberty versus security, notable cases, decision-making in the Court. The link takes you to Annenberg's Sunnylands Classroom website, were the film can be watched in numerous file sizes, and where visitors can watch the film in numerous languages or read a transcript. Filmed in 2005. Length: 29 min., 7 sec. Louisiana v. Mississippi (1995) (Audio)The oral argument of the case. Kyllo v. United States (2001) (Audio)The oral argument and opinion announcement of the case. Rapanos v. United States (2006) (Audio)The oral argument and opinion announcement of the case. 60-Second Civics, Episode 27: Congress and the Power of the Supreme Court (Audio)The ability of Congress to check the power of the Supreme Court.
60-Second Civics, Episode 26: Executive Enforcement of Supreme Court Decisions (Audio)Executive enforcement of Supreme Court decisions as a check on the power of the Court.
60-Second Civics, Episode 25: Presidential Appointments and the Supreme Court (Audio)Presidential appointments as a check on the power of the Supreme Court.
60-Second Civics, Episode 24: Self-Imposed Limits on the Supreme Court (Audio)Self-imposed limits, one of several checks on the power of the Supreme Court.
60-Second Civics, Episode 23: Constitutional Interpretation: Instrumentalism (Audio)An examination of instrumentalism, the final of four common methods of constitutional interpretation.
60-Second Civics, Episode 22: Constitutional Interpretation: Fundamental Princi (Audio)An examination of fundamental principles, the third of four common methods of constitutional interpretation.
60-Second Civics, Episode 21: Constitutional Interpretation: Original Intent (Audio)An examination of original intent, the second of four common methods of constitutional interpretation.
60-Second Civics, Episode 20: Constitutional Interpretation: Textualism (Audio)An examination of textualism, the first of four common methods of constitutional interpretation.
60-Second Civics, Episode 19: Written Opinions (Audio)The Supreme Court's practice of issuing written opinions.
60-Second Civics, Episode 18: Declining Supreme Court Caseload (Audio)How the number of cases the Supreme Court decides has changed in recent years.
60-Second Civics, Episode 17: Writs of Certiorari (Audio)How the Supreme Court decides to hear a case.
60-Second Civics, Episode 16: Appellate Jurisdiction (Audio)The Supreme Court?s appellate jurisdiction.
60-Second Civics, Episode 15: Original Jurisdiction (Audio)The Supreme Court?s original jurisdiction.
60-Second Civics, Episode 14: Role of the Supreme Court (Audio)The role of the Supreme Court in the American constitutional system.
60-Second Civics, Episode 13: Arguments Against Judicial Review (Audio)Some of the arguments against judicial review.
60-Second Civics, Episode 10: Judicial Review (Audio)The power of judicial review.
60-Second Civics, Episode 9: Characteristics of the Federal Judiciary (Audio)Some of the characteristics of the federal judiciary.
60-Second Civics, Episode 8: The Creation of the Judicial Branch (Audio)Having provided context for the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for justice Sonia Sotomayor, over the span of a few weeks 60-Second Civics examined the judicial branch of the United States government.
Page 2
appeal The bringing of a court case from a lower court to a higher court in an attempt to have the lower court's decision reversed. Grounds for appeal include errors of law, fact, or procedure. appellate jurisdiction The legal authority of a court to hear appeals from a lower court. jurisdiction The power or authority to hear cases and make decisions. landmark decision A legal decision that constitutes a turning point or stage. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is an example of a landmark decision. litigant A party involved in a lawsuit. methods of constitutional interpretation Interpretive methods employed by U.S. Supreme Court justices when considering constitutional issues of some cases. See strict construction, original intent, fundamental principles, and instrumentalism original jurisdiction In some cases, such as those in which a state is a party, the Supreme Court has the right to consider the facts and the law in a case without it having first been passed on by a lower court. writ of certiorari A type of writ seeking judicial review of a legal decision. Page 3
The case summaries below were provided by Oyez and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Please visit Oyez.org for more case summaries. Luther v. Borden (1849) Facts of the case: In 1841, Rhode Island was still operating under an archaic system of government established by a royal charter of 1663. The charter strictly limited suffrage and made no provision for amendment. Dissident groups, protesting the charter, held a popular convention to draft a new constitution and to elect a governor. The old charter government declared martial law and put down the rebellion, although no federal troops were sent. One of the insurgents, Martin Luther, brought suit claiming the old government was not "a republican form of government" and all its acts were thereby invalid.Case Question: Did the Court have the constitutional authority to declare which group constituted the official government of Rhode Island?Case Conclusion: No. The Court held that "the power of determining that a state government has been lawfully established" did not belong to federal courts, and that it was not the function of such courts to prescribe the qualifications for voting in the states. The Court held that the creation of republican forms of government and the control of domestic violence were matters of an essentially political nature committed by the Constitution to the other branches of government. Hence, the Court should defer to Congress and the president when confronted with such issues.Citation: The Oyez Project, Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849)Link to case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/48us1 Baker v. Carr (1962) Facts of the case: Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's general assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.Case Question: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?Case Conclusion: Yes. In an opinion which explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation.Citation: The Oyez Project, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)Link to case: http://oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6 Bush v. Gore (2000) Facts of the case: Following the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Texas Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral arguments two days later. Case Question: Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses?Case Conclusion: Noting that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the unsigned opinion issued on behalf of the entire Court held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount were fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 U.S.C. Sec. 5). Loath to make broad precedents, the opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the Court's holding that the Florida supreme court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida supreme court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.Citation: The Oyez Project, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)Link to case: http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949 |
What are the four methods of constitutional interpretation
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketiadaan Inc.
