The term "American legal system" is misleading because it suggests a unified legal system. Because the U.S. Constitution divides powers between the national Government and the Governments of the United States, it would be more accurate to speak of the "American legal system. Fifty-one different legal systems - one for the federal government and one for each of the 50 states - there are in the United States.
In the years preceding the adoption of the Constitution, the former colonies were governed by the Articles of Confederation. One of the major weaknesses of this arrangement was the absence of a federal judicial system. While each state had institutions to settle legal disputes, no national justice system existed to resolve border conflicts (not a led to a war between Virginia and Pennsylvania) and increasing economic conflicts arising from different states. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, among others, have convinced the delegates of the need for a federal judicial system, officially recognized in Article III of the Constitution, to coexist with the judicial authorities of the states. Thus, since the founding of the Republic, the judiciary in the United States has been distributed between national and state judicial authorities. This is known as "judicial federalism." Although created under separate authorities and with different jurisdictions, the federal judiciary and the judicial authorities of the states have much in common.
Justice of the state and the seal of the United States of America
The legal system in the United States is based on the common law. The universal law is the set of principles that come from judicial decrees that reflect the U.S. and customs. The common law is judge-made, as opposed to the organic law, which is right established by the legislative acts of the legislatures. As these judicial decrees are re applied to similar situations, the set of principles becomes gradually "common" to the whole nation. Customary law was originally introduced in England after the Norman Conquest of 1066. The expansion of the British Empire, the common law has been exported with it. The basis of the American legal system, therefore the common law. Under the common law, the judge is more than a passive interpreter of the Act; on the contrary, he or she is, through judicial decisions, the creator and modifier of the Act. The main feature of the common law is the doctrine of stare decision. This doctrine holds that judges should look to past policy decisions and resolve current disputes in relying on the precedents. Once a court announces a principle of law, it adheres to this principle in cases raising similar questions. This doctrine, often followed throughout the American legal system, promotes continuity and predictability in the law.
Lawyer to question a witness at the Tribunal
Despite jurisdictional differences, the structure of national judicial systems and states according to a visible trend. Both are basically on three levels. Level the lowest are the courts of first instance, often called courts of first instance. As its name implies, trial courts try cases. It is here that the trial begins and, much more often than otherwise, concludes. Each year, nearly 100 million cases - civil and criminal – are filed in the courts of first instance in 50 states. Because civil law regulates relationships between individuals, a civil case is one that involves individuals or private organizations. Examples: breach of contract, divorce, and defamation of character. Criminal law defines crimes against public order; Thus, a criminal case is one submitted by a government against UN individual will devote to have violated an express provision of the Act. Instances include murder, rape and theft. The courts of first instance in the federal system, because of their limited jurisdiction, hear only a few hundred thousand cases annually is at the level of the Court of first instance that you will find attached prosecutors and defendants, plaintiffs and defendants; and judges and juries. In the layer intermediate are courts of appeal, not the objective is to provide a forum for the consideration of the cases already inscription in the courts of first instance. At the top of the judiciary are the highest courts, commonly referred to as the supreme courts. These courts mainly heard the call in question. As a general rule, the courts of first instance to decide questions of fact and the appellate courts to rule on questions of law. Appellate courts don't use juries; decisions are made by a panel of judges.
In general, only two methods existing for the selection of judges - nomination and election. A compromise method, often called "merit selection," combines elements of the appointive and elective methods. With the appointment, a duly constituted political authority - in general, the President or Governor - ax. Of judicial personnel, often subject to external control of the United Nations. The method of appointment is required by the Constitution for judges of the federal courts. The President appoints, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Once approved by a simple majority of the Senate vote, federal judges serve the living conditions and may be expelled by the process of impeachment by the house of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. With the election, the electors voted to choose judges. Each state decides for himself the selection of its judges, with more having some type of election. Currently, all 50 states use five different selection methods - partisan election; non-partisan election; legislative appointment; appointment to the governorship; and merit selection. Each approach selection - appointive and elective - advantages and disadvantages.
John Marshall
The legal proceedings in the United States are based on an adversarial system. The courts are neutral arenas in which opposing parties present their case to an impartial arbitrator, which is pronounced and often team with the help of a jury, final judgment. The judiciary is also essential in our system of checks and balances. Originally announced in the case Marbury v. Madison, judicial review, the power of the courts to declare unconstitutional the laws or actions of other governmental entities - has become an important contribution to the Government of the United States. It is in this case that John Marshall c.j. offered the following statement: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law."
Other References
Case Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).
0 comments:
Post a Comment