Only $0.99/month

Terms in this set (77)

For a government to succeed, it must either remove causes of faction or find a way to control or mediate disparate views. Two ways to remove causes of faction: destroying liberty necessary for factions to survive, and creating a citizenry united by common opinion. Madison finds both of these options unsatisfactory. Citizens can't share the same opinion because people's natural and inherent divisions, many of which are rooted in the division of property. These differences are necessary to the survival of society, and it is the role of government to mediate between these competing interests. Madison suggests to control the effects of faction- eliminating the existence of a majority, or preventing majorities from carrying out acts of oppression. Direct democracy won't work since it's impossible to prevent a majority of citizens coming together to oppress the minority; no mechanism to check power of majority. Republican government provides the cure to alleviate the problems of faction. Republic is superior since it delegates authority from masses to elected representations. Filters public opinion, placing long-term public good above citizens' short-term, individual interests. Republic can be extended over a much larger class of citizens than a democracy. An effective government must strike a number between number of governed and representatives. Strking this balance is easier in a large republic than a small one. Unique federal system (power between state and national government) provides good structure for republican government. In a large society, there'll bne greater diversity. More difficult for faction to invade rights of citizens. Under federal system, while faction rise in individual states, they'll be less likely to overtake the entire union.
The Supreme Court upheld the power of the national government and denied the right of a state to tax the federal bank using the Constitution's supremacy clause. The Court's broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause paved the way for later rulings upholding expansive federal powers. First major Supreme Court decision to define relationship between national and state government. In 1816, congress charted the 2nd bank of the US. In 1818, the Maryland state legislature levied a tax requiring all banks not chartered by Maryland (2nd bank of US) to: 1. Buy stamped paper from state on which their bank notes were to be issued; 2. Pay the state $15,000 a year, or 3. Go out of business. James McCulloch, the head cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the US, refused to pay tax, and Maryland bought suit against him. After losing, McCulloch appealed the decision to the US supreme court by order of the US secretary of treasury. The Court answered questions: Did Congress have authority to charter a bank. And if it did, could a state tax it? Chief Justice John Marshall's answer to the first question- whether Congress had the right to establish a bank or another type of corporation. Although the word "bank" cannot be found in the Constitution, the Constitution enumerates powers that give Congress the authority to levy and collect taxes, issue a currency, and borrow funds. Form these enumerated powers, Marshall found, it was reasonable to imply that Congress had the power to charter a bank, which could be considered "necessary and proper" to the exercise of its aforementioned enumerated powers. Marshall next addressed the question of whether a federal bank by any state government. To Marshall, this was not a difficult question. The national government was dependent on the people, not the states, for its power. Marshall noted, the Constitution specifically calls for the national law to be supreme. The Court's decision in Mculloch has far-reaching consequences even today. The necessary and proper clause is to justify federal acion in many areas, including social welfare problems. Furthermore, had Marshall allowed the state of Maryland to tax the federal bank, it's possible that states could have attempted to tax all federal agencies located within their boundaries, a costly proposition that could have driven the federal government into insurmountable debt.
1. A bill in introduced by a member of Congress and it is often sponsored by several members. The bill is then distributed to the appropriate committee(s) for consideration. The committee usually gives the bill to one of its subcommittees, who research the bill. The subcommittee votes on the bill and if it's they pass it, it's returned to the full committee. There, it goes through markup, a session during which committee members can offer changes to a bill before it goes to the floor. The full committee may also reject the bill before it goes to the floor in either house.
2. 2nd stage takes place on the House or Senate floor. It must be approved by the Committee on Rules, and given a rule and a place on the calendar, or schedule. The rule given to a bill determines the limits on the floor debate and specifies what types of amendments, if any, may be attached to the bill. Amendments are offered during consideration of bill and eventually, a vote is taken. If bill survives, it's sent to senate. Unlike House, bills may be held b a hold or filibuster in Senate. Hold- a tactic by which a senate asks to be informed before a bill is brought to floor. This request signals Senate leadership and sponsors of bill that a colleague may have objections to the bill and should be consulted before further action is taken. Filibuster- a formal way of halting Senate action on a bill by means of long speeches or unlimited debate. Only way to end a filibuster is a cloture which is a motion signed by a minimum of 60 senators.
3. Last stage of action happens when the 2 chambers of Congress approve different versions of same bill. When this happens, they establish a conference committee to iron out the differences between the two versions. The committee hammers out a compromise, which is returned to vote one last time. The bill could just die there. If the bill is passed, it's given to president who either signs it or vetoes it. The president has four options:
i. The president can sign the bill, where it becomes law.
ii. The president can veto the bill, which is more likely to occur when the president is of a different party from the majority in Congress; Congress may override the president's veto with a two-thirds vote in each chamber, a hard task.
iii. The president can wait the full 10 days, at the end of which time the bill becomes law without signature if Congress is still in session.
iv. If Congress postpones before ten days are up, the president can choose not to sign a bill, and it's a pocket veto. The only for a bill then to become law is for it to be reintroduced in the next session and put through process all over again (ask)
District Courts Congress created US district courts when it enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789. District courts are federal trial courts, Every state has at least one federal district court. Federal district wourts, where the bulk of the judicial work takes place in the federal system, have original jurisdiction over only specific types of cases. Although the rules governing district court jurisdiction can be complex, cases heard in federal district court by a single judge generally fall into 1 of 3 categories:
1. They involve the federal government as a party.
2. They present a federal question based on a claim under the US Constitution, a treaty with another nation, or a federal statute. This is called federal question jurisdiction and it can involve criminal or civil law.
3. They involve civil suits in which citizens are from different states, and the amount of money at issue is more than $75,000. Each federal judicial district has US attorney and he/she is that district's chief law enforcement officer. US attorneys have a considerably amount of discretion as to whether they pursue criminal or civil investigations or file charges against individuals or corporations.
o Courts of Appeal The losing party in a case hear and decided in a federal district court can appeal the decision to the appropriate court of appeals. The US courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts in the federal system and were established in 1689 to hear appeals from federal district courts. The number of judges within each court of appeals varies- ranges from 60 to 30. Each court is supervised by a chief justice, the most senior judge in terms of service. The courts of appeals have no original jurisdiction. Instead, Congress has granted these courts appellate jurisdiction over 2 general cetgories of cases: appeals from criminal and civil cases from the district courts, and appeals from administrative agencies. Courts of appeals try to correct errors of law and procedure that have occurred in lower courts or administrative agencies. Decisions of the US Supreme Court are binding throughout the nation and establish national precedents, or rules for settling subsequent cases of similar nature.
Briefs Court of appeals hear no new testimony. Lawyers submit written arguments (brief), and then they appear to argue the case orally to the court.
Stare decisis In court rulings, a reliance on past decisions or precedents to formulate decisions in new cases. This allows for continuity and predictability in our judicial system. Although stare decisis can be helpful in predicting decisions, at times judges carve out new ground and ignore, decline to follow, or even overrule precedents to reach a different conclusion in a case involving similar circumstances. This is a major reason why so much litigation exists in America today. Parties to a suit know that the outcome of a case is not always predictable; if such prediction were possible there would be little reason to go to court.
o Supreme Court Reviews cases from US courts of appeals and state supreme courts and acts as the final interpreter of the US Constitution. The court not only decides a number of major cases with tremendous policy significance, but it also ensure uniformity in the interpretation of national laws and the Constitution, resolves conflicts among the states, and maintains the supremacy of national law in the federal system.