Circuit Court Of Appeals Act example essay topic

1. The court was instituted by the Constitution of 1787 as the head of a federal court system with the authority to act in cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; in controversies to which the United States is a party; in controversies between states or between citizens of different states; in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls. The size of the court is set by Congress; it varied during the 19th century from 6 to 10 members before stabilizing in 1869 at 9. Appointments to the Supreme Court and to the lower federal courts are made by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Tenure is during good behaviour, subject to expulsion by conviction on impeachment. Only one justice has been impeached, Samuel Chase, who was acquitted in 1805.

In 1969 one, Abe For tas, was forced to resign, however, because of his outside financial dealings. In maintaining the constitutional order, the Supreme Court from an early date has exercised the power of declaring acts of Congress or of the state legislatures unconstitutional. Such power of judicial review, however, is not expressly conferred by the Constitution (see judicial review). Executive, administrative, and judicial actions are also subject to review by the Supreme Court. Relatively few cases are brought in the original jurisdiction of the court. The great bulk of the court's business comes to it in its appellate jurisdiction.

Depending on the nature of the decision in the state or lower federal court, the route to the Supreme Court is by appeal or certiorari. The difference between the two is that an appeal obliges the court to review the case, whereas a review under certiorari is discretionary. The development of this bifurcated jurisdiction reflects a response by Congress to a long struggle by the court to cope with the volume of cases annually docketed. In 1891 a measure of relief was afforded by the Circuit Court of Appeals Act, which set up intermediate courts with final authority over appeals from federal district courts, save in cases of exceptional public importance.

The Judge's Act (Feb. 13, 1925), sponsored by the court itself, carried the reforms further and greatly limited the obligatory jurisdiction, giving the court a large measure of control over its business by placing most classes of cases under certiorari. Any assessment of the unifying forces in U.S. society must ascribe an important role to the Supreme Court. The chief technical instrument employed by the court has been the commerce clause of the Constitution, applied to nullify state laws of taxation or regulation that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce; the clause has also been used to uphold the power of Congress to regulate vast sectors of the economy. While the commerce clause has been the chief doctrinal source of power over the economy, the due process and equal protection clauses have been the principal sources of protection of persons and corporations against arbitrary or repressive acts of government. These clauses were used at first to protect property rights, but by the 20th century they began to be applied to the area of civil liberties, particularly in the extension of Bill of Rights guarantees to state actions.

By the mid-20th century the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been designed for the benefit of emancipated blacks, began to serve its historic purpose as a barrier to racially discriminatory laws. The opinions of the court have often been the epitome of reasoned elaboration. In conjunction with its long tradition of dissent, it serves to clarify, refine, and test the philosophic ideals written into the Constitution and translate them into working principles for a federal union under law. Beyond its specific contributions, this symbolic and pragmatic function may be regarded as the most significant role of the court in the life of the nation. 2.

Contract law is the product of a business civilization. It will not be found, in any significant degree, in pre commercial societies. Most primitive societies have other ways of enforcing the commitments of individuals; for example, through ties of kinship or by the authority of religion. In an economy based on barter, most transactions are self-enforcing because the transaction is complete on both sides at the same moment.

Problems may arise if the goods exchanged are later found to be defective, but these problems will be handled through property law with its penalties for taking or spoiling the property of another rather than through contract law. Even when transactions do not take the form of barter, primitive societies continue to work with notions of property rather than of promise. In early forms of credit transactions, kinship ties secured the debt, as when a tribe or a community gave hostages until the debt was paid. Other forms of security took the form of pledging land or pawning an individual into debt slavery. Some credit arrangements were essentially self-enforcing: livestock, for example, might be entrusted to a caretaker who received for his services a fixed percentage of the offspring. In other cases constructing a hut, clearing a field, or building a boat enforcement of the promise to pay was more difficult but still was based on concepts of property.

In other words, the claim for payment was based not on the existence of a bargain or promise but on the unjust detention of another's money or goods. When a worker sought to obtain his wages, the tendency was to argue in terms of his right to the product of his labor. A true law of contracts that is, of enforceable promises implies the development of a market economy. Where a commitment's value is not seen to vary with time, ideas of property and injury are adequate and there will be no enforcement of an agreement if neither party has performed, since in property terms no wrong has been done.

In a market economy, on the other hand, a person may seek a commitment today to guard against a change in value tomorrow; the person obtaining such a commitment feels harmed by a failure to honor it to the extent that the market value differs from the agreed price.