1 .4 - DAILY SHEET 1

1.4 Expanding Judiciary

Learning Objective

Students will be able to describe how Marbury v. Madison clarified and expanded the role of the judicial branch.

Do Now

Judiciary: the judicial authorities of a country; judges collectively.

Judicial Review: review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act (est. w/ Marbury v. Madison).

Writ of Mandamus: an extraordinary writ commanding an official to perform a ministerial act that the law recognizes as an absolute duty and not a matter for the official's discretion.

The Supreme Court

“Judiciary”

The Supreme Court Justices

Back Row: Sonia Sotomayor , Stephen Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Elena Kagan,Front Row: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts Jr., Anthony Kennedy, Ruth B. Ginsburg

The Supreme Court Justices

Inside The Supreme Court Building

The Scope of Judicial Power

Judicial power is passive and reactive Hamilton (Federalist) called it “the least dangerous

branch” The Framers viewed the federal judiciary as an

important check against Congress and the President (Checks & Balances)

Has no influence over the “sword” or “purse” Judicial power is ensured via:

Insulation from public opinion Insulation from the rest of govt.

Judicial Federalism: State & Federal Courts (write down)

The US has a dual court system: state and federal; they exist and operate at the same time in the same geographic areas While each hears certain types of cases, neither is

completely independent of the other. The two systems often interact and share the goal of fairly handling legal issues.

Why two court systems?

The Constitution created a govt. structure known as federalism that calls for the sharing of powers between federal and state govts. It gives certain powers to the federal govt. and reserves the rest for the states. The federal court system deals with legal issues expressly

granted to it by the Constitution. The state court systems deal w/ state constitutions and the

legal issues that the U.S. Constitution didn’t give to the federal govt. or explicitly deny to the states. For example, because the Constitution gives Congress sole

authority to make laws concerning bankruptcies, a state court would lack jurisdiction. Likewise, since the Constitution does not give the federal govt. authority in most family law matters, a federal court would lack jurisdiction in a divorce case.

Supreme Court Jurisdiction

The Federal Judicial System

Article III (Constitutional)

vs. Article I (Legislative)

Courts

Original Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to hear a case “in the

first instance”

Appellate Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to review decisions

made by lower courts

The Federal Judicial System

District CourtsHear more than 258,000 civil cases and

68,000 criminal cases annually Use both grand juries and petit juries District judges are appointed by the president, subject

to confirmation by the Senate, and hold office for life

Judicial SystemsThe Adversarial System

Judges serve as relatively passive and detached

referees who do not argue with attorneys or

challenge evidence

The Inquisitorial System

Judges take an active role in discovering and

evaluating evidence, will question witnesses, and

intervene as deemed necessary

• Court of law is a neutral arena where 2 parties argue their differences

• The federal government brings criminal cases

• The federal judiciary decides the cases

Judicial Systems

Types of Legal Disputes• Criminal Law

– Crimes against the public order

– Liberty is at stake– Right to government-

provided attorneys– Right to trial by jury

• Civil law– Relations between

individuals, and their legal rights

– Typically monetary punishment

The contemporary debate over the Supreme Court's role is really a debate about the proper balance between

government authority versus individual rights.

The Great Debate over the Proper Role of the Courts

The Eleven U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal

Strict and Loose Construction

Strict: literal reading of the Constitution by examining the original language of the document and the intent of the framers.

Loose: a belief in a flexible reading of the Constitution, taking into account modern values and realities.

Strict vs. Loose

Thomas Jefferson believed in a strict construction of the Constitution. He believed people should follow exactly what was stated and allowed in it. When it came to the national bank, he believed in a

strict interpretation, as well. On the contrary, he believed in a loose interpretation

of the Louisiana Purchase.

Strict vs. Loose

On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton believed in a loose construction of the Constitution, and also the national bank.

He thought you could take whatever action you wanted, as long as the document did not specifically say you couldn't do it.

Marbury v. Madison 1803 (write down)

Name and Date of the Case

Facts of the Case Summary of the Decision

Significance of the Decision

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

William Marbury, appointed to a federal judgeship by outgoing President Adams, was denied his Commission by incoming President Jefferson. Marbury argued that the Supreme Court could force Secretary of State Madison to perform his official duty and deliver Marbury his commission.

The Court struck down as unconstitutional the law on which Marbury had based his case.

Established the principle of Judicial Review.

Marbury v. Madison 1803

Judicial Review

The power of a court to refuse to enforce a law or government regulation that, in the opinion of the judges, conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or, in a state court, the state constitution

Only a constitutional amendment or a later Supreme Court can modify the Court’s decisions

Exit Ticket

How did the concept of judicial review expand the role of the judiciary?