| This week we are starting on Article Three and the Judiciary Branch.
Article Three:
Section One:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Clause one sets out that there will only be one Supreme Court (or else it would not be supreme eh?) and that all judicial power at the Federal level will be placed there. It also allows for the Congress to create lower Federal courts. It allows the Congress to establish as many or few as it deems fit. That is kind of interesting, as it would be the Congress that decides the level of access to Federal Courts by setting the number of these Courts.
It also states that as long Justices behaves themselves; they will be on the Court. This little section is where the lifetime appointment comes from. We might get in deep water here but the general understanding of this part is that Justices were appointed for life in order to give them freedom from political pressure. This has not always worked (see the Roberts Court for a good example) but the idea is a good one.
The Dogs Dad was an attorney and he felt that this is one area of the Constitution that should be changed. He strongly felt that because of the lifetime appointments and he increase in life span that the Law was moving far slower than the rest of our society. His solution was to change the lifetime to a single 20 year term, with a generous pension and the revocation of the retired Justices ability to practice or teach law. He felt that the last would be required, since the idea is to get newer legal minds onto the bench and clear away the older ossified opinions. The Dog thinks this is great idea, but also thinks that it is too abstract for most folks to care about enough to get an Amendment passed.
This clause, as others do, prevents any kind of monetary pressure to be put on the Justices or Federal Judges by reducing their compensation in retaliation for rulings.
Section Two:
Clause One:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects
This clause sets out the boundaries of the Judicial Branches power. It allows the High Court to have jurisdiction over all Federal laws, the Constitution and Treaties, as well as the officers elected, appointed and commissioned by the United States.
It also sets out that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over disputes between the States and between States and Federal Government. In it's original form (above) it also allows Federal Courts to hear suits of citizens against States they do not live in. This was changed by the 11th Amendment which reads:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
This Amendment was ratified in February 1795.
Clause Two:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
This clause says that if a case involves an Ambassador, Secretary of a Department or where a State is a party (either plaintiff or defendant) that the case should be heard originally by the Supreme Court.
It then goes on to say that in all other cases the Supreme Court is the appeals Court not just for the Law but for Fact, except where the Congress has legislated it to be different. The Dog is not sure what laws have been put in place (any readers that are lawyers might help here) but it is pretty clear that nearly every case is heard and reviewed by the lower Federal Courts before it reaches the Supreme Court these days.
Clause Three:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
It might be tempting to kind of down play Clause Three, but to the Dog it is one of the most important there is. This is where you right to a trail by jury is laid out. Note that the only exception is Impeachment, the rules for which are covered in the Sections on the Legislative Branch.
Trial by jury was something the Framers felt was critical. The abuses of English law often stemmed from the fact that Judges were the sole arbiters of the Law and were often on the side of the local lords or the King. For a group of men that worried about the ability of a powerful King to take property or to change the rules at a whim this was a major problem. Their solution was to put citizens into the loop and reduce the power of individual judges.
The Dog's Dad was a huge believer in juries. He did not worry much about education level or political views of jurors that he would pick, as he felt that there is a wisdom that comes from people of good will earnestly looking at the fact and making the best decision they could. It was not that they could not be wrong from time to time, but it was that in the aggregate they would be correct more often than a single, legally educated, judge would be.
Section Three:
Clause One:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
This clause is very specific in what constitutes treason in the United States. It was written for the same reasoning as the trail by jury clause. If all it takes is the Government to declare you a traitor and execute you, then you can never be safe to speak out against the actions of the Government.
Note the Aid and Comfort part. These words have been used, recklessly, by the Conservatives to discredit anyone that objected to their actions in the so called War on Terror. It is a sign of our times that very few people called them on their very near accusation of treason. But it is the earlier part "adhering to their Enemies" that keeps this from being a flat accusation of treason.
The standard of proof is fairly high, with two separate and eyewitnesses to the overt act being required to convict or a confession in open court, not one that was obtained earlier and read into the record. It seems that the Framers were worried about torture, where any kind of statement at all can be obtained.
Clause Two:
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
What this clause does is prevent the crime of treason from being passed on to the entire family of the convicted traitor. This is a left over concern from the Aristocracy, when political power was passed down from father to son. By declaring Corruption of Blood a monarch could strip a lord and his entire family of that political power. While the Framers were sure that there would be no Lords in the new United States, they wanted to be sure that the actions of one person could only have consequences for that person, not his family.
There it is the entire Section that details the Judicial Branch. Obviously there have been a lot of laws that have shaped the system that we see today, but it is kind of unnerving the level of power that this branch originally had.
So, citizens, what do you think? The floor is yours.
|
RSS Feed
