SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 51
―It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department
     to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other; the
                       courts must decide on the operation of each”
Essential Question
Inferior Courts = lower federal courts beneath the Supreme Court
 The authority of a court to hear
 (to try and decide) a case

 Federal    courts hear cases for two reasons:
  • Subject Matter
     Application of the U.S. Constitution

  • Parties Involved
     State v. State
     Citizen v. State
Types of Jurisdiction
          Exclusive Jurisdiction
Those cases that can only be heard in the
               federal courts
         Concurrent Jurisdiction
States and Federal Courts share power to
                 hear cases
           Original Jurisdiction
   A court in which a case is first heard
          Appellate Jurisdiction
A court that hears a case on appeal from a
                 lower court
Define Federalism
Power is split between the Federal government
           and state governments.



Applying federalism to court jurisdiction
All cases not heard by Federal Courts are in the
          jurisdiction of State Courts…
Inferior
State    (lower)
Courts   Federal
         Courts
Why do you
What does                     think it might
             Highest rank
 the word                     be important
            and authority;
“Supreme”                       to have a
            ultimate, final
  mean?                        “Supreme”
                                 Court?
Chief Justice and eight
associate judges


Nominated and appointed by
President, with Senate
approval.


Concepts of judicial activism
and judicial restrain affect the
judicial selection process
      Service                Birth
   Name, state   Assoc. Justice    Chief Justice         Yrs
       Place Date Died Religion
 Antonin Scalia, DC        1986–       —   N.J.   1936 —
      Roman Catholic
 Anthony M. Kennedy, Calif.      1988–     —      Calif. 1936
      —     Roman Catholic
 Clarence Thomas, DC 1991–             —   Ga.    1948 —
      Roman Catholic
 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DC         1993–     —      N.Y.   1933
      —     Jewish
 Stephen G. Breyer, Mass.        1994–     —      Calif. 1938
      —     Jewish
 John G. Roberts, DC             2005–—    N.Y.   1955 —
      Roman Catholic
 Samuel A. Alito, Jr., N.J.      2006–     —      N.J.   1950
      —     Roman Catholic
 Sonia Sotomayor N.Y. 2009–            —   N.Y.   1954 —
      Roman Catholic
 Elena Kagan N.Y.          2010–       —   N.Y.   1960 —
      Jewish
 Maintain   their neutrality

 Protect
       the rights of people to express
 unpopular views

 Promote    consistent interpretations of laws
 Supreme   Court Justices can retire:
 • At age 70
    Must have served 10 years to receive full
     salary for life
 • At age 65
    Must have served 15 years to receive full
     salary for life
         Chief Justice       Associate
          $217,400            Justices
           per year          $208,100
 Vary   in their political and legal philosophies...



      Judicial Activism         Judicial Restraint
     Loosely interpret and         Follow a strict
          apply the             interpretation of the
      Constitution based            Constitution
     on ongoing changes        Believe judges should
         and values.           also follow precedent
OF THE CASE

   RELEVANT

TEXT OF THE


   JUDICIAL
 Both   original and appellate jurisdiction
  • Most cases come on appeal from the lower courts.


           Original jurisdiction exists when:
         1. There are controversies involved 2+ states
   2. The case involves ambassadors or other public ministers


 Marbury  v. Madison
  • Supreme court case that established
    power of judicial review
 Supreme Court has the power to decide
 the constitutionality of:
  • State and federal legislation
  • Actions of chief executives
  • Decisions of other courts

 Inother words, the Supreme Court has the
 final authority on the meaning of the
 Constitution
        They have the POWER to declare acts
             and laws unconstitutional
*Rule of Four: At least 4 of 9 justices must agree to hear a case in the S.C.
   Born on March 19,1891 in Los Angeles
   Earned law degree at University of CA
   Appointed attorney general of CA in 1939
   Governor of CA from 1942-1950
   Ran for vice president in 1948 unsuccessfully
   Appointed chief justice by President Eisenhower and serves
    from 1953-1969
    • Known for controversial decisions about civil rights
    • First major case was Brown v. Board of Education
    • Engle v. Vitale 1962: prayer in public school is unconstitutional
    • Miranda v. Arizona 1966: authorities must inform criminal suspects of
      their rights
 Plessyv. Ferguson 1896- establishes the
 ―separate but equal‖ doctrine
  • Different interpretation of the 14th amendment
  • Court battles with this issue for over 50 years
  • People take advantage of this doctrine to oppress
   African Americans
 ―Separate but equal‖ doesn’t become an
 issue in education until later due to the
 slow development of public education.
   The case combined several cases from Kansas, South
    Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware.
   The most famous case and namesake is that of Linda Brown
    and her family.
   1952- The case was heard by Chief Justice Fred Vinson
    • No decision was reached
    • He died that year and was replaced by Earl Warren
   1953- The case was reargued
   1954- The court reached a unanimous decision declaring
    ―separate but equal‖ unconstitutional.
   The court found that even if segregated schools had identical
    facilities (which wasn’t usually the case), something about
    them was ―inherently unequal.‖
   They came to the conclusion that segregation itself ―had a
    detrimental effect‖ and was giving African American children a
    sense of ―inferiority‖ that ―affects the motivation of a child to
    learn.‖
   They also declared that segregation violates the 14th
    amendment of equal protection under the law.
   The court passed a 2nd clause for the decision dealing with
    implementation.
    • The cases would be brought back to the state courts so states
      could set up a means for integration in their public schools.
    • This didn’t acknowledge the problem of balance.
   Many states fought back against mandated integration.
    • Changed public schools into private schools and charged whites
      tuition
    • Angry mobs prevented African American students from entering
      schools.
    • Example: Little Rock Nine 1957
 It forced Americans to redefine the
  meaning of ―all men are created equal.‖
 It destroyed the ―separate but equal‖
  loophole in the 14th amendment.
 Step in the right direction for African
  Americans gaining equality in society
 Major stimulus to civil rights movement
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Miranda v. Arizona Case Background



•In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was accused of rape by a woman who
identified him in a police line up.
•Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and was
questioned by police for 2 hours but was never informed of his
5th amendment right against self incrimination or his 6th
amendment right to the assistance of an attorney.
•As a result of his interrogation, he confessed in writing to the
crimes of which he was charged, his written statement also
included his acknowledgement that he was aware of his right
against self-incrimination.
•Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison for each
crime
Miranda, The Plaintive

•His attorney argued that his confession
should have been excluded from trial
because he had not been informed of his
rights, nor had an attorney been present
during his interrogation.
Arizona, The Complainant

•The police officers involved admitted that they
had not given Miranda any explanation of his
rights. They argued, however, that because
Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the
past, he must have been aware of his rights.
The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal
and upheld his conviction.
The Verdict

•Miranda's defense attorney appealed to
the Arizona Supreme Court. Eventually
the case ended up at the supreme court
where it was decided in favor of Miranda
with a 5-4 vote.
 In the early 1970’s, UC Davis had two
  admissions systems for their medical
  school
 Regular Admission Program
 Special Admissions Program for
  ethic minority and/or disadvantaged
  applicants.
 16 out of the 100 spaces in the school
  were allocated for these students.
 Allan  Bakke, a white male was rejected
  twice from the medical program.
 Students with lower “benchmark” scores
  were admitted through the special
  admissions program.
 Bakke filed a suit against UC Davis for
  violating the 14th Amendment and the
  Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 The
    Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
 Amendment:
  • ―No State shall…deny to any person within its
   jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.‖
 Section   601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
  • ―No person in the United States shall be excluded
   from participation in or otherwise discriminated
   against on the ground of race, color, or national
   origin under any program or activity receiving
   Federal financial assistance. ―
 Superior   Court of Yolo County:
  • Found that the program violates the
   Constitution, but did not force Bakke’s
   admittance.




 Supreme    Court of California:
  • Declares the program is in violation of the
   Constitution, and orders Bakke’s admittance.
Review
   Facts:
    • 1857, Missouri, Illinois, Wiscon
        sin
    •   Dred Scott was an African-
        American slave
    •   He was taken by his master
        from the slave state of Missouri
        to the free state of Illinois
    •   He lived on free soil for a long
        time
    •   When the Army ordered his
        master to go back to
        Missouri, he took Scott with him
        back to that slave state
   Issues:
    • Scott said that he should be
        free since he lived on free soil
        for such a long time
   Arguments:
    • As a non-citizen many felt that
      Scott had no rights and could not
      sue in a federal court and
      therefore must remain a slave.
   Decision:
    • Scott lost the decision as the
      Supreme Court declared no
      slave or descendant of a slave
      could be a U.S. citizen
    • The Supreme Court also ruled
      that Congress could not stop
      slavery in the newly emerging
      territories
    • The decision enraged Abraham
      Lincoln, and brought the nation to
      the brink of the Civil War
   Amendment:
    • 13th- Abolition of Slavery
   Facts:
    • 1896, Louisiana
    • Louisiana law said all
      African Americans must
      ride in a separate railroad
      car
    • Homer Plessy, a black
      man, refused to leace a
      ―white only‖ railroad car
   Issues:
    • Does segragation violate
      the principle of equal
      protection?
   Arguments:
    • Plessy said this law of
      segragation violated his right
      to equal protection.
   Decision:
    • The Supreme Court ruled that
      the segragation law didn’t
      violate the 14th Amendment as
      long as the cars for blacks and
      whites were of equal quality
    • For more than 50 years this
      idea of separate but equal
      was the law of the land
   Amendment:
    • 14th- Citizenship and Civil
      Right
   Facts:
    • 1954
    • Lind Brown attended an all
      black school 21 blocks from
      her home
    • Linda Brown and her parents
      felt she should be able to
      attend a white school seven
      blocks from her home
   Issues:
    • Is the separate but equal law
      acceptable?
   Arguments:
    • Thurgood Marshall argued
      that the black children were
      made to feel inferior to whites
      by having separate schools for
      black students.
   Arguments:
    • Thurgood Marshall argued that
      black children were made to
      feel inferior to whites by having
      separate schools for black
      students
   Decision:
    • The court agreed with
      Thurgood Marshall, saying
      separate but equal violated the
      equal protection clause of the
      14th Amendment
    • The decision of Brown v. Board
      of Education of Topeka
      overturned the Plessy v.
      Ferguson and made all
      segragation unconstitutional
   Amendment:
    • 14th- Citizenship and Civil
      Rights
   Facts:
    • The university of California.
      Davis reserved places in each
      entering class for African
      American, Hispanic
      American, Asian American and
      Native American students.
    • In 1973 and 1974 a white
      applicant named Allan Bakke
      applied for admission and was
      rejected
    • At the same time other
      applicants of other racial groups
      were admitted even though they
      had lower grade-point averages
      bandb test scores
   Issues:
    • Allan Bakke argued he was a victim of
      reverse discrimination
   Arguments:
    • Some said that colleges can use race as
      basis for admission, others disagreed
   Decision:
    • The court ruled that under the equal
      protection principle it was
      unconstitutional for an admission
      program to discriminate against whites
      only because of their race
    • However the court said race could be
      one of the factors considered if the
      school wished to create a more diverse
      student body
   Amendment:
    • 14th- Citizenship and Civil Rights
   Facts:
    • Ida Phillips applied for a
      position with the Martin Marietta
      Corporation
    • The corporation screened
      women applicants to find out
      whether they had young
      children, since the corporation
      believed children took up a
      large part of a women’s time
    • Ida had two preschoolers and
      was denied the job.
   Issues:
    • Can the company ask only
      women whether they have
      children and use this
      information in the hiring
      process.
   Arguments:
    • Ida took the corporation to
      court saying she was being
      discriminated against since
      men were not questioned as
      to whether they had children
      and were hired whether they
      had young children or not
   Decision:
    • The Supreme Court ruled that
      the company could not have
      ―one hiring policy for women
      and another for men‖
   Amendment:
    • 14th- Citizenship and Civil
      Rights

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

Landmark supreme court cases
Landmark supreme court casesLandmark supreme court cases
Landmark supreme court casesPiers Midwinter
 
Unit 5 judicial branch academic
Unit 5   judicial branch academicUnit 5   judicial branch academic
Unit 5 judicial branch academicFredrick Smith
 
Unit 5 judicial branch academic
Unit 5   judicial branch academicUnit 5   judicial branch academic
Unit 5 judicial branch academicFredrick Smith
 
Topic 9 racial discrimination Industrial Era
Topic 9 racial discrimination Industrial EraTopic 9 racial discrimination Industrial Era
Topic 9 racial discrimination Industrial Eraurbachc
 
Landmark Cases
Landmark CasesLandmark Cases
Landmark CasesKatieUmana
 
His 121 chapter 11 the jacksonian impulse
His 121  chapter 11 the jacksonian impulseHis 121  chapter 11 the jacksonian impulse
His 121 chapter 11 the jacksonian impulsedcyw1112
 
Chapter 18 the reconstruction era
Chapter 18   the reconstruction eraChapter 18   the reconstruction era
Chapter 18 the reconstruction eraRobert Hornyak
 
Chapter 17
Chapter 17Chapter 17
Chapter 17bmumby
 
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4mpalaro
 
Supreme court cases landmark
Supreme court cases landmarkSupreme court cases landmark
Supreme court cases landmarkwforrest
 
Plessy v. Ferguson Case by Shruti Misra
Plessy v. Ferguson Case by Shruti MisraPlessy v. Ferguson Case by Shruti Misra
Plessy v. Ferguson Case by Shruti MisraSHRUTIMISRA7
 
Citizenship in the new nation
Citizenship in the new nationCitizenship in the new nation
Citizenship in the new nationestherholt
 
Constitutional Law M Casto 7.24.10
Constitutional Law M Casto 7.24.10Constitutional Law M Casto 7.24.10
Constitutional Law M Casto 7.24.10melissacasto
 
36 supreme court-cases
36 supreme court-cases36 supreme court-cases
36 supreme court-casesnorth819
 

La actualidad más candente (20)

Landmark supreme court cases
Landmark supreme court casesLandmark supreme court cases
Landmark supreme court cases
 
Unit 5 judicial branch academic
Unit 5   judicial branch academicUnit 5   judicial branch academic
Unit 5 judicial branch academic
 
Unit 5 judicial branch academic
Unit 5   judicial branch academicUnit 5   judicial branch academic
Unit 5 judicial branch academic
 
Topic 9 racial discrimination Industrial Era
Topic 9 racial discrimination Industrial EraTopic 9 racial discrimination Industrial Era
Topic 9 racial discrimination Industrial Era
 
Case law project
Case law projectCase law project
Case law project
 
Landmark Cases
Landmark CasesLandmark Cases
Landmark Cases
 
US Citizenship - The Constitution - Hawaii
US Citizenship - The Constitution - HawaiiUS Citizenship - The Constitution - Hawaii
US Citizenship - The Constitution - Hawaii
 
His 121 chapter 11 the jacksonian impulse
His 121  chapter 11 the jacksonian impulseHis 121  chapter 11 the jacksonian impulse
His 121 chapter 11 the jacksonian impulse
 
Chapter 18 the reconstruction era
Chapter 18   the reconstruction eraChapter 18   the reconstruction era
Chapter 18 the reconstruction era
 
Chapter 17
Chapter 17Chapter 17
Chapter 17
 
Blog notes
Blog notesBlog notes
Blog notes
 
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4
Constitutional Issues - Chapter 4
 
Blog notes
Blog notesBlog notes
Blog notes
 
Supreme court cases landmark
Supreme court cases landmarkSupreme court cases landmark
Supreme court cases landmark
 
Plessy v. Ferguson Case by Shruti Misra
Plessy v. Ferguson Case by Shruti MisraPlessy v. Ferguson Case by Shruti Misra
Plessy v. Ferguson Case by Shruti Misra
 
Citizenship in the new nation
Citizenship in the new nationCitizenship in the new nation
Citizenship in the new nation
 
Constitutional Law M Casto 7.24.10
Constitutional Law M Casto 7.24.10Constitutional Law M Casto 7.24.10
Constitutional Law M Casto 7.24.10
 
36 supreme court-cases
36 supreme court-cases36 supreme court-cases
36 supreme court-cases
 
Plessy v ferguson
Plessy v fergusonPlessy v ferguson
Plessy v ferguson
 
The bill of rights
The bill of rightsThe bill of rights
The bill of rights
 

Similar a 11&12.judicial branch

11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branchjtoma84
 
The Judicial Branch
The Judicial BranchThe Judicial Branch
The Judicial Branchdficker
 
Powerpoint For Slideshow
Powerpoint For SlideshowPowerpoint For Slideshow
Powerpoint For SlideshowNorfolk State
 
Plessy 1Plessy v. Ferguson and Miranda .docx
Plessy      1Plessy v. Ferguson and Miranda .docxPlessy      1Plessy v. Ferguson and Miranda .docx
Plessy 1Plessy v. Ferguson and Miranda .docxLeilaniPoolsy
 
powerpoint.26
powerpoint.26powerpoint.26
powerpoint.26rebwball
 
Part VII - how it happened race and gender issues in u.s. law
Part VII - how it happened race and gender issues in u.s. lawPart VII - how it happened race and gender issues in u.s. law
Part VII - how it happened race and gender issues in u.s. lawALMA HERNANDEZ, JD, LMSW
 
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination cover
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination covercivil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination cover
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination coverPhyllis W. Cheng
 
The Supreme Court
The Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court
The Supreme CourtMelissa
 

Similar a 11&12.judicial branch (14)

11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
 
The Judicial Branch | The US Supreme Court
The Judicial Branch | The US Supreme CourtThe Judicial Branch | The US Supreme Court
The Judicial Branch | The US Supreme Court
 
GOVcivilrights
GOVcivilrightsGOVcivilrights
GOVcivilrights
 
The Judicial Branch
The Judicial BranchThe Judicial Branch
The Judicial Branch
 
Powerpoint For Slideshow
Powerpoint For SlideshowPowerpoint For Slideshow
Powerpoint For Slideshow
 
US History 18.3
US History 18.3US History 18.3
US History 18.3
 
Ch05
Ch05Ch05
Ch05
 
Plessy 1Plessy v. Ferguson and Miranda .docx
Plessy      1Plessy v. Ferguson and Miranda .docxPlessy      1Plessy v. Ferguson and Miranda .docx
Plessy 1Plessy v. Ferguson and Miranda .docx
 
Sp 108-supreme courtpresentation-3
Sp 108-supreme courtpresentation-3Sp 108-supreme courtpresentation-3
Sp 108-supreme courtpresentation-3
 
powerpoint.26
powerpoint.26powerpoint.26
powerpoint.26
 
Part VII - how it happened race and gender issues in u.s. law
Part VII - how it happened race and gender issues in u.s. lawPart VII - how it happened race and gender issues in u.s. law
Part VII - how it happened race and gender issues in u.s. law
 
Judicial branch
Judicial branch Judicial branch
Judicial branch
 
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination cover
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination covercivil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination cover
civil rights handbook - unlawful discrimination cover
 
The Supreme Court
The Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court
The Supreme Court
 

Más de jtoma84

Patriotact
PatriotactPatriotact
Patriotactjtoma84
 
Chapter 22 foreign policy and defense
Chapter 22 foreign policy and defenseChapter 22 foreign policy and defense
Chapter 22 foreign policy and defensejtoma84
 
Domesticpolicy 111211171206-phpapp01
Domesticpolicy 111211171206-phpapp01Domesticpolicy 111211171206-phpapp01
Domesticpolicy 111211171206-phpapp01jtoma84
 
14. citizenship and equal justice and 17.elections and voting
14. citizenship and equal justice and 17.elections and voting14. citizenship and equal justice and 17.elections and voting
14. citizenship and equal justice and 17.elections and votingjtoma84
 
Politicalpartiesandinterestgroups 100103012644-phpapp01
Politicalpartiesandinterestgroups 100103012644-phpapp01Politicalpartiesandinterestgroups 100103012644-phpapp01
Politicalpartiesandinterestgroups 100103012644-phpapp01jtoma84
 
Party power point
Party power pointParty power point
Party power pointjtoma84
 
AP Review
AP ReviewAP Review
AP Reviewjtoma84
 
Ap government the_federal_court_system_review
Ap government the_federal_court_system_reviewAp government the_federal_court_system_review
Ap government the_federal_court_system_reviewjtoma84
 
The Executive Branch
The Executive BranchThe Executive Branch
The Executive Branchjtoma84
 
Billofrights
BillofrightsBillofrights
Billofrightsjtoma84
 
3.2.principles.of.us.government
3.2.principles.of.us.government3.2.principles.of.us.government
3.2.principles.of.us.governmentjtoma84
 
3 branches1
3 branches13 branches1
3 branches1jtoma84
 
2.origins of american government
2.origins of american government2.origins of american government
2.origins of american governmentjtoma84
 
1[1].foundations of american government
1[1].foundations of american government1[1].foundations of american government
1[1].foundations of american governmentjtoma84
 
Ushonors final jeopardy
Ushonors final jeopardyUshonors final jeopardy
Ushonors final jeopardyjtoma84
 
The progressive era_(1)
The progressive era_(1)The progressive era_(1)
The progressive era_(1)jtoma84
 
14.blog the age of globalization 2000 2011
14.blog the age of globalization 2000 201114.blog the age of globalization 2000 2011
14.blog the age of globalization 2000 2011jtoma84
 
13.blog the resurgence of conservatism 1980 2000
13.blog the resurgence of conservatism 1980 200013.blog the resurgence of conservatism 1980 2000
13.blog the resurgence of conservatism 1980 2000jtoma84
 
12.3 blog.the stalemated seventies 1968 1980
12.3 blog.the stalemated seventies 1968 198012.3 blog.the stalemated seventies 1968 1980
12.3 blog.the stalemated seventies 1968 1980jtoma84
 
12.2.2 blog.social unrest 1964 1968
12.2.2 blog.social unrest 1964 196812.2.2 blog.social unrest 1964 1968
12.2.2 blog.social unrest 1964 1968jtoma84
 

Más de jtoma84 (20)

Patriotact
PatriotactPatriotact
Patriotact
 
Chapter 22 foreign policy and defense
Chapter 22 foreign policy and defenseChapter 22 foreign policy and defense
Chapter 22 foreign policy and defense
 
Domesticpolicy 111211171206-phpapp01
Domesticpolicy 111211171206-phpapp01Domesticpolicy 111211171206-phpapp01
Domesticpolicy 111211171206-phpapp01
 
14. citizenship and equal justice and 17.elections and voting
14. citizenship and equal justice and 17.elections and voting14. citizenship and equal justice and 17.elections and voting
14. citizenship and equal justice and 17.elections and voting
 
Politicalpartiesandinterestgroups 100103012644-phpapp01
Politicalpartiesandinterestgroups 100103012644-phpapp01Politicalpartiesandinterestgroups 100103012644-phpapp01
Politicalpartiesandinterestgroups 100103012644-phpapp01
 
Party power point
Party power pointParty power point
Party power point
 
AP Review
AP ReviewAP Review
AP Review
 
Ap government the_federal_court_system_review
Ap government the_federal_court_system_reviewAp government the_federal_court_system_review
Ap government the_federal_court_system_review
 
The Executive Branch
The Executive BranchThe Executive Branch
The Executive Branch
 
Billofrights
BillofrightsBillofrights
Billofrights
 
3.2.principles.of.us.government
3.2.principles.of.us.government3.2.principles.of.us.government
3.2.principles.of.us.government
 
3 branches1
3 branches13 branches1
3 branches1
 
2.origins of american government
2.origins of american government2.origins of american government
2.origins of american government
 
1[1].foundations of american government
1[1].foundations of american government1[1].foundations of american government
1[1].foundations of american government
 
Ushonors final jeopardy
Ushonors final jeopardyUshonors final jeopardy
Ushonors final jeopardy
 
The progressive era_(1)
The progressive era_(1)The progressive era_(1)
The progressive era_(1)
 
14.blog the age of globalization 2000 2011
14.blog the age of globalization 2000 201114.blog the age of globalization 2000 2011
14.blog the age of globalization 2000 2011
 
13.blog the resurgence of conservatism 1980 2000
13.blog the resurgence of conservatism 1980 200013.blog the resurgence of conservatism 1980 2000
13.blog the resurgence of conservatism 1980 2000
 
12.3 blog.the stalemated seventies 1968 1980
12.3 blog.the stalemated seventies 1968 198012.3 blog.the stalemated seventies 1968 1980
12.3 blog.the stalemated seventies 1968 1980
 
12.2.2 blog.social unrest 1964 1968
12.2.2 blog.social unrest 1964 196812.2.2 blog.social unrest 1964 1968
12.2.2 blog.social unrest 1964 1968
 

11&12.judicial branch

  • 1. ―It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other; the courts must decide on the operation of each”
  • 3. Inferior Courts = lower federal courts beneath the Supreme Court
  • 4.  The authority of a court to hear (to try and decide) a case  Federal courts hear cases for two reasons: • Subject Matter  Application of the U.S. Constitution • Parties Involved  State v. State  Citizen v. State
  • 5. Types of Jurisdiction Exclusive Jurisdiction Those cases that can only be heard in the federal courts Concurrent Jurisdiction States and Federal Courts share power to hear cases Original Jurisdiction A court in which a case is first heard Appellate Jurisdiction A court that hears a case on appeal from a lower court
  • 6.
  • 7.
  • 8. Define Federalism Power is split between the Federal government and state governments. Applying federalism to court jurisdiction All cases not heard by Federal Courts are in the jurisdiction of State Courts…
  • 9. Inferior State (lower) Courts Federal Courts
  • 10. Why do you What does think it might Highest rank the word be important and authority; “Supreme” to have a ultimate, final mean? “Supreme” Court?
  • 11. Chief Justice and eight associate judges Nominated and appointed by President, with Senate approval. Concepts of judicial activism and judicial restrain affect the judicial selection process
  • 12. Service Birth  Name, state Assoc. Justice Chief Justice Yrs Place Date Died Religion  Antonin Scalia, DC 1986– — N.J. 1936 — Roman Catholic  Anthony M. Kennedy, Calif. 1988– — Calif. 1936 — Roman Catholic  Clarence Thomas, DC 1991– — Ga. 1948 — Roman Catholic  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DC 1993– — N.Y. 1933 — Jewish  Stephen G. Breyer, Mass. 1994– — Calif. 1938 — Jewish  John G. Roberts, DC 2005–— N.Y. 1955 — Roman Catholic  Samuel A. Alito, Jr., N.J. 2006– — N.J. 1950 — Roman Catholic  Sonia Sotomayor N.Y. 2009– — N.Y. 1954 — Roman Catholic  Elena Kagan N.Y. 2010– — N.Y. 1960 — Jewish
  • 13.  Maintain their neutrality  Protect the rights of people to express unpopular views  Promote consistent interpretations of laws
  • 14.  Supreme Court Justices can retire: • At age 70  Must have served 10 years to receive full salary for life • At age 65  Must have served 15 years to receive full salary for life Chief Justice Associate $217,400 Justices per year $208,100
  • 15.  Vary in their political and legal philosophies... Judicial Activism Judicial Restraint Loosely interpret and Follow a strict apply the interpretation of the Constitution based Constitution on ongoing changes Believe judges should and values. also follow precedent
  • 16. OF THE CASE RELEVANT TEXT OF THE JUDICIAL
  • 17.  Both original and appellate jurisdiction • Most cases come on appeal from the lower courts. Original jurisdiction exists when: 1. There are controversies involved 2+ states 2. The case involves ambassadors or other public ministers  Marbury v. Madison • Supreme court case that established power of judicial review
  • 18.  Supreme Court has the power to decide the constitutionality of: • State and federal legislation • Actions of chief executives • Decisions of other courts  Inother words, the Supreme Court has the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution They have the POWER to declare acts and laws unconstitutional
  • 19. *Rule of Four: At least 4 of 9 justices must agree to hear a case in the S.C.
  • 20.
  • 21. Born on March 19,1891 in Los Angeles  Earned law degree at University of CA  Appointed attorney general of CA in 1939  Governor of CA from 1942-1950  Ran for vice president in 1948 unsuccessfully  Appointed chief justice by President Eisenhower and serves from 1953-1969 • Known for controversial decisions about civil rights • First major case was Brown v. Board of Education • Engle v. Vitale 1962: prayer in public school is unconstitutional • Miranda v. Arizona 1966: authorities must inform criminal suspects of their rights
  • 22.  Plessyv. Ferguson 1896- establishes the ―separate but equal‖ doctrine • Different interpretation of the 14th amendment • Court battles with this issue for over 50 years • People take advantage of this doctrine to oppress African Americans  ―Separate but equal‖ doesn’t become an issue in education until later due to the slow development of public education.
  • 23. The case combined several cases from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware.  The most famous case and namesake is that of Linda Brown and her family.  1952- The case was heard by Chief Justice Fred Vinson • No decision was reached • He died that year and was replaced by Earl Warren  1953- The case was reargued  1954- The court reached a unanimous decision declaring ―separate but equal‖ unconstitutional.
  • 24. The court found that even if segregated schools had identical facilities (which wasn’t usually the case), something about them was ―inherently unequal.‖  They came to the conclusion that segregation itself ―had a detrimental effect‖ and was giving African American children a sense of ―inferiority‖ that ―affects the motivation of a child to learn.‖  They also declared that segregation violates the 14th amendment of equal protection under the law.
  • 25. The court passed a 2nd clause for the decision dealing with implementation. • The cases would be brought back to the state courts so states could set up a means for integration in their public schools. • This didn’t acknowledge the problem of balance.  Many states fought back against mandated integration. • Changed public schools into private schools and charged whites tuition • Angry mobs prevented African American students from entering schools. • Example: Little Rock Nine 1957
  • 26.  It forced Americans to redefine the meaning of ―all men are created equal.‖  It destroyed the ―separate but equal‖ loophole in the 14th amendment.  Step in the right direction for African Americans gaining equality in society  Major stimulus to civil rights movement
  • 28. Miranda v. Arizona Case Background •In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was accused of rape by a woman who identified him in a police line up. •Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and was questioned by police for 2 hours but was never informed of his 5th amendment right against self incrimination or his 6th amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. •As a result of his interrogation, he confessed in writing to the crimes of which he was charged, his written statement also included his acknowledgement that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination. •Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison for each crime
  • 29. Miranda, The Plaintive •His attorney argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial because he had not been informed of his rights, nor had an attorney been present during his interrogation.
  • 30. Arizona, The Complainant •The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction.
  • 31. The Verdict •Miranda's defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Eventually the case ended up at the supreme court where it was decided in favor of Miranda with a 5-4 vote.
  • 32.
  • 33.  In the early 1970’s, UC Davis had two admissions systems for their medical school  Regular Admission Program  Special Admissions Program for ethic minority and/or disadvantaged applicants.  16 out of the 100 spaces in the school were allocated for these students.
  • 34.  Allan Bakke, a white male was rejected twice from the medical program.  Students with lower “benchmark” scores were admitted through the special admissions program.  Bakke filed a suit against UC Davis for violating the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  • 35.  The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: • ―No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.‖  Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; • ―No person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. ―
  • 36.  Superior Court of Yolo County: • Found that the program violates the Constitution, but did not force Bakke’s admittance.  Supreme Court of California: • Declares the program is in violation of the Constitution, and orders Bakke’s admittance.
  • 37.
  • 38.
  • 39.
  • 40.
  • 42. Facts: • 1857, Missouri, Illinois, Wiscon sin • Dred Scott was an African- American slave • He was taken by his master from the slave state of Missouri to the free state of Illinois • He lived on free soil for a long time • When the Army ordered his master to go back to Missouri, he took Scott with him back to that slave state  Issues: • Scott said that he should be free since he lived on free soil for such a long time
  • 43. Arguments: • As a non-citizen many felt that Scott had no rights and could not sue in a federal court and therefore must remain a slave.  Decision: • Scott lost the decision as the Supreme Court declared no slave or descendant of a slave could be a U.S. citizen • The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress could not stop slavery in the newly emerging territories • The decision enraged Abraham Lincoln, and brought the nation to the brink of the Civil War  Amendment: • 13th- Abolition of Slavery
  • 44. Facts: • 1896, Louisiana • Louisiana law said all African Americans must ride in a separate railroad car • Homer Plessy, a black man, refused to leace a ―white only‖ railroad car  Issues: • Does segragation violate the principle of equal protection?
  • 45. Arguments: • Plessy said this law of segragation violated his right to equal protection.  Decision: • The Supreme Court ruled that the segragation law didn’t violate the 14th Amendment as long as the cars for blacks and whites were of equal quality • For more than 50 years this idea of separate but equal was the law of the land  Amendment: • 14th- Citizenship and Civil Right
  • 46. Facts: • 1954 • Lind Brown attended an all black school 21 blocks from her home • Linda Brown and her parents felt she should be able to attend a white school seven blocks from her home  Issues: • Is the separate but equal law acceptable?  Arguments: • Thurgood Marshall argued that the black children were made to feel inferior to whites by having separate schools for black students.
  • 47. Arguments: • Thurgood Marshall argued that black children were made to feel inferior to whites by having separate schools for black students  Decision: • The court agreed with Thurgood Marshall, saying separate but equal violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment • The decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson and made all segragation unconstitutional  Amendment: • 14th- Citizenship and Civil Rights
  • 48. Facts: • The university of California. Davis reserved places in each entering class for African American, Hispanic American, Asian American and Native American students. • In 1973 and 1974 a white applicant named Allan Bakke applied for admission and was rejected • At the same time other applicants of other racial groups were admitted even though they had lower grade-point averages bandb test scores
  • 49. Issues: • Allan Bakke argued he was a victim of reverse discrimination  Arguments: • Some said that colleges can use race as basis for admission, others disagreed  Decision: • The court ruled that under the equal protection principle it was unconstitutional for an admission program to discriminate against whites only because of their race • However the court said race could be one of the factors considered if the school wished to create a more diverse student body  Amendment: • 14th- Citizenship and Civil Rights
  • 50. Facts: • Ida Phillips applied for a position with the Martin Marietta Corporation • The corporation screened women applicants to find out whether they had young children, since the corporation believed children took up a large part of a women’s time • Ida had two preschoolers and was denied the job.  Issues: • Can the company ask only women whether they have children and use this information in the hiring process.
  • 51. Arguments: • Ida took the corporation to court saying she was being discriminated against since men were not questioned as to whether they had children and were hired whether they had young children or not  Decision: • The Supreme Court ruled that the company could not have ―one hiring policy for women and another for men‖  Amendment: • 14th- Citizenship and Civil Rights

Notas del editor

  1. Lowest LevelExample: Bucks County Courthouse AppealsExample: PA Court of AppealsState Supreme CourtExample: PA Supreme Court
  2. Supreme Court JusticesPresident nominates and appoints with approval of Congress Concepts of judicial activism and judicial restraint affect the judicial selection process
  3. Current (2009) salary for the Chief Justice is $217,400 per year, while the Associate Justices each make $208,100
  4. Judicial Restraint Follow a strict interpretation of the ConstitutionBelieve judges should also follow precedent Judicial Activism Loosely interpret the Constitution Argue law should be interpreted and applied in the light of ongoing changes in conditions and valuesResults in the expansion of judicial powers