Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
11&12.judicial branch
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

11&12.judicial branch

1,585

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,585
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Lowest LevelExample: Bucks County Courthouse AppealsExample: PA Court of AppealsState Supreme CourtExample: PA Supreme Court
  • Supreme Court JusticesPresident nominates and appoints with approval of Congress Concepts of judicial activism and judicial restraint affect the judicial selection process
  • Current (2009) salary for the Chief Justice is $217,400 per year, while the Associate Justices each make $208,100
  • 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
  • Transcript

    • 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”
    • 2. Learning Goal 11.12a.2
    • 3. Essential Question
    • 4. Inferior Courts = lower federal courts beneath the Supreme Court
    • 5.  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
    • 6. 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
    • 7. 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…
    • 8. State Courts Inferior (lower) Federal Courts
    • 9. What does the word “Supreme” mean? Highest rank and authority; ultimate, final Why do you think it might be important to have a “Supreme” Court?
    • 10. 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
    • 11.   Service Birth Name, state Assoc. Justice Chief Justice Place Date Died Religion Antonin Scalia, DC 1986– — Roman Catholic  Anthony M. Kennedy, Calif. 1988– — Roman Catholic  Clarence Thomas, DC 1991– — Roman Catholic  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DC 1993– — Jewish  Stephen G. Breyer, Mass. 1994– — Jewish  John G. Roberts, DC 2005–— Roman Catholic  Samuel A. Alito, Jr., N.J. 2006– — Roman Catholic  Sonia Sotomayor N.Y. 2009– — Roman Catholic  Elena Kagan N.Y. 2010– — Jewish  Yrs N.J. 1936 — — Calif. 1936 Ga. 1948 — — N.Y. — Calif. 1938 N.Y. 1955 — — N.J. N.Y. 1954 — N.Y. 1960 — 1933 1950
    • 12.  Maintain their neutrality  Protect the rights of people to express unpopular views  Promote consistent interpretations of laws
    • 13.  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 $217,400 per year Associate Justices $208,100
    • 14.  Vary in their political and legal philosophies... Judicial Activism Loosely interpret and apply the Constitution based on ongoing changes and values. Judicial Restraint Follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution Believes judges should also follow precedent
    • 15. OF THE CASE RELEVANT TEXT OF THE JUDICIAL
    • 16.  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
    • 17.  Supreme Court has the power to decide the constitutionality of: • State and federal legislation • Actions of chief executives • Decisions of other courts  In other words, the Supreme Court has the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution They have the POWER to declare acts and laws unconstitutional
    • 18. *Rule of Four: At least 4 of 9 justices must agree to hear a case in the S.C.
    • 19.   Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called "Cert Petition.") A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ.  Writ of Certiorari- A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court.  "Review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but a judicial discretion. A petition for writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons." Rule 10, Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • 20. Learning Goal 11.12a.4
    • 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.  Plessy v. 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.‖ through the use of Amicus Curiae 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  Led to a great decline in de jure [based on or according to law] school segregation
    • 27. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
    • 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.  Before Miranda, the rules governing custodial interrogation of suspects in criminal cases were left primarily to the police and state legislatures.  In Miranda, the Supreme Court created and imposed a new procedure for interrogating suspects in custody, introducing the famous "right to remain silent" speech.  The court's decision expanded the lawmaking power of the courts at the expense of the lawmaking power of the other branches of government
    • 33. The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution.  It applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, see Mapp v. Ohio, (1961),  to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, see Miranda v. Arizona, (1966),  to evidence gained in situations where the government violated defendants’ Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, see Miranda.  The rule does not apply to civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 
    • 34. 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. 
    • 35.  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.
    • 36.  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. ―
    • 37.  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.
    • 38. Learning Goal 11.12a.3
    • 39.       The argument over Midnight Judges led one of the most important Supreme Court cases of all time William Marbury was a midnight judge who never received his official papers James Madison was the Sec. of State whose duty it was to deliver them Judiciary Act 1789 req. Supreme Court to order that the papers be deliver- Marbury sued to enforce this Chief Justice Marshall decided this provision was unconstitutional b/c the Constitution did not empower the Supreme Court to issue such an order Affirmed the principle of judicial review- the ability of the Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional
    • 40.     McCulloch v. Maryland- [1819] Supreme Court case that strengthened federal authority and upheld the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States by establishing that the State of Maryland did not have the power to tax the bank Maryland had tried to destroy a branch of the Bank of the U.S. by imposing a tax on its notes John Marshall used implied powers and strengthened the federal authority by stating ―the power to tax involves the power to destroy‖ and that ―a power to create implies a power to preserve‖ This case legitimized loose construction of the Constitution arguing that the Constitution was intended to “endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs”
    • 41. The Watergate Scandal
    • 42.  This became a landmark United states supreme court decision against President Nixon. On June 17, 1972 5 burglars broke into the Watergate building also known as the Democratic headquarters. The burglars were linked to the White house under Nixon. Later tapes were found that held information that could link the president to the burglars. Nixon pleaded guilty claiming that this shouldn’t be subject to judicial resolution since the matter was a dispute within the executive branch. Also he argued that the tapes should be protected under the president’s executive privilege.
    • 43. UNITED STATES  The President's power to claim executive privilege is not an absolute one. Executive privilege may not be invoked to deny the courts access to evidence needed in a criminal proceeding. This is a dispute that can be heard in the federal courts. NIXON  The constitutional system of separation of powers grants to the President the privilege of withholding information from the other branches of government. This power is absolute, and it is very important where high-level communications are involved. In addition, this dispute should be resolved within the executive branch, not by the courts.
    • 44. The Court ruled unanimously that President Nixon had to give up the tapes. The Court made it clear that the President could not withhold evidence from an ongoing criminal prosecution of another person simply because he was the President. The ruling established a constitutional basis for executive privilege. It also stated that the president is not immune from judicial process, and must turn over evidence warrant by the courts. The doctrine of executive privilege entitles the president to a high degree of confidentiality from the courts if the evidence involves matters of national security, but the president cannot hold back evidence involving non-sensitive information when needed for a criminal investigation.
    • 45. Review
    • 46. Learning Goal: 11.12a.1
    • 47.  Facts: • 1857, Missouri, Illinois, • • • •  Wisconsin Dred Scott was an AfricanAmerican 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
    • 48.  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
    • 49.  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?
    • 50.  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
    • 51.  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.
    • 52.  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
    • 53.  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
    • 54.  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
    • 55.  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.
    • 56.  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

    ×