court

Angelina Chu – Article 3, Section 1 (Judicial Branch)

Video

Written Component

Some framers of the Constitution believed that the federal government could not be successful without a judicial system to enforce such laws. This is rooted in the issues of the Articles of Confederation (1777) due to a weak central government, leading to a lack of unity among the states. One of the main flaws of the Articles was that it failed to enforce the laws that it preached. The Constitution strives to instill the unity that the Articles lacked by enforcing its unifying principles through the judicial system.
The judicial system is one of the three branches of the United States government. The common interpretation of Article 3 is that it unifies the states under one judicial system and Supreme Court.

In particular, Section 1 of Article 3 establishes this Supreme Court as the highest court in the judicial system, with inferior courts established by Congress when necessary. It also strives to enforce the integrity of the judicial system by stating that judges may keep such positions for the rest of their lives as long as they maintain “good behavior.” By instilling the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, Section 1 grants judges the ability to interpret the law. This strengthens the federal government as the Judicial branch can review governmental affairs, helping to check and balance the other two branches of government.


Although this interpretation of Article 3, Section 1 may be common, historical scholars have diverged in their understandings of the section. In Not Your Founding Fathers’ Judiciary, scholar David A. Strauss argues that the judicial system does not function in the way the founding fathers intended, with state courts taking on more importance than the Supreme Court. Although Section 1 puts emphasis on how the states are united under one Supreme Court, Strauss conveys that with the increasing number of crimes today, most cases do not have a chance to make it to the Supreme Court, with justice being carried out in state courts instead. On the other hand, academic Richard W. Garnett conveyed his argument in the article The “Judicial Power” and the Power of Judicial Review where he expresses the importance of judicial review, the court’s power to interpret and enforce the law.

Through its ability to deem governmental actions constitutional, Garnett presents that the judicial branch checks and balances the Executive and Legislative branches and thereby upholds the Constitution. The importance of judicial review is also demonstrated in Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison of 1803, which established judicial review, legitimatizing the Supreme Court’s right to rule laws as constitutional.
As Garnett highlights, Section 1’s establishment of the Supreme Court and judicial review helps to check and balance the other branches of the government.

This idea can be traced back to Montesquieu’s Enlightenment philosophy of the separation of powers. As Montesquieu details in his 1748 work, The Spirit of Laws, he proposes that the government must not be concentrated and instead split up into separate branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, to check and balance the others, preventing tyranny and abuse of power. Article 3, the judicial branch, plays an imperative role in carrying out the separation of powers, upholding the integrity of the Constitution. Although the judicial system is a necessity to the Constitution, one possible amendment would be to classify “good behavior.” As behaving without “good behavior” is the only condition under which a judge would no longer be deemed fit for the job, defining what such behavior is would warrant that all judges are held to a specific, uniform standard and therefore ensure the Constitution’s integrity.

Carly Schreiber – Sixth & Seventh Amendment

Video

Written Component

The United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment declares that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” This amendment developed as a result of the British colonists’ experiences, who repeatedly subjected them to arbitrary arrests and unfair trials. The founding fathers intended to create safeguards to defend the rights of people facing criminal charges and guarantee fair and just trials. 

The Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution says, “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.” This amendment’s origins can be found in English common law traditions, where jury trials were crucial for settling civil disputes. 

In federal criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy, public, and impartial jury trial that takes place in the state and district where the alleged crime was committed. The defendants are entitled to legal representation, have to be made aware of the allegations against them, and have the right to answer questions and present their own witnesses. This ensures that defendants are given the chance to present their case and are judged by a fair and impartial jury of their peers, and are not subject to arbitrary or extended detention. 

If the dispute is worth more than twenty dollars, the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial. It also forbids the re-examination of jury-decided facts unless specifically permitted by law. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining the traditional role of juries in resolving civil disputes and forbids courts from overturning jury verdicts unless they do so in alignment with the common law’s rules. 

Legal scholars and court rulings have disagreed in the past on how to interpret these clauses. The Sixth Amendment has sparked debates about what constitutes a “speedy” trial and what requirements should be used to assess whether the right of a defendant to a single trial has been violated. The extent of the jury trial guarantee provided by the Seventh Amendment and its relevance to modern civil litigation has also been questioned. In Barker v. Wingo (1972), the Supreme Court established a four-factor balancing test to determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. This case serves as an example of how the Sixth Amendment is applied in court. This case exemplifies the ongoing debate about the specific requirements and circumstances defining a “speedy” trial.

 

Bibliography

 

“Barker v. Wingo.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/71-5255.

 

“Gideon v. Wainwright.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155.

 

“Miranda v. Arizona.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759.

 

“Right to Speedy Trial by Jury, Witnesses, Counsel.” National Constitution Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-vi.

 

“Sixth Amendment Rights in Criminal Prosecutions.” Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6.