American Government Unit 2, Chapture 6 (Tcn)

Front 1

adversarial system of justice

Back 1

A system of law in which an impartial judge or jury decides between the competing parties in a legal case.

Front 2

appellate court

Back 2

A court responsible for reviewing the decisions of lower courts.

Front 3

brief

Back 3

A written argument prepared by a party to a legal case that provides this party's interpretation of the facts and the relevent laws.

Front 4

case law

Back 4

The recorded decisions of the judiciary that reflects its interpretation of the law.

Front 5

common law

Back 5

A system of law derived from judicial decisions that are based upon prevailing traditions.

Front 6

concurring opinion

Back 6

A written explanation of the legal reasoning of one or more Supreme Court justices who agree with the majority decision, but have different legal reasons for doing so.

Front 7

dissenting opinion

Back 7

A system of law in which opposing parties in a legal case present their arguments before a judge who both prosecutes and decides the case.

Front 8

inquisitorial systme of justice

Back 8

A system of law in which opposing parties in a legal case present their arguments before a judge who both prosecutes and decides the case.

Front 9

judicial activism

Back 9

Judicial decision making characterized by a broad interpretation of the law and a willingness to use judicial authority to limit the actions taken by other branches of government.

Front 10

judicial review

Back 10

The power of the courts to evaluate the constitutionality of actions taken by other branches of government.

Front 11

judicial restraint

Back 11

Judicial decision making characterized by a narrow interpretation of the law and deference to the other branches of government

Front 12

jurisdiction

Back 12

The authority of a court to judge in a particular case.

Front 13

last-in-time rule

Back 13

Rule which states that if a treaty and federal statute impose competing obligations on the federal government, whichever measure was adopted later has the force of law.

Front 14

legislative intent

Back 14

The specific meaning of a particular statute as intended by legislators who voted for it.

Front 15

majority opinion

Back 15

A written explanation of a Supreme Court decision and the legal reasoning behind it as agreed upon by a majority of Supreme Court justices.

Front 16

oral argument

Back 16

An argument presented orally before a court in which a party to a legal case presents its interpretation of the facts and relevent laws.

Front 17

original intent

Back 17

the specific meaning of the Constitution as intended by its authors.

Front 18

precedents

Back 18

Previous judicial decisions that judges draw upon when making later rulings on similar cases.

Front 19

remand

Back 19

An action by which a higher court sends a legal case back to a lower court for further consideration or a new trial.

Front 20

senatorial courtesy

Back 20

The customary practice that allows a senator to veto district court nominees in his or her home state. This courtesy is extended only to those senators who are from the same political party as the president.

Front 21

stare decisis

Back 21

The legal doctrine that says that courts are obligated to follow precedents when reaching decisions on similar cases.

Front 22

statute

Back 22

A law enacted by a legislature.

Front 23

strict constructionists

Back 23

Proponents of judicial restraint who believe that judges should employ a literal interpretation of the law.

Front 24

Supreme Court

Back 24

The highest court in the United States.

Front 25

trial court

Back 25

A court that initially hears and decides cases.

Front 26

unanimous opinion

Back 26

A written explanation of a Supreme Court decision and the legal reasoningg behind it as agreed upon by all of the Supreme Court justices.

Front 27

writ of certiorari

Back 27

An order that a lower court send the record of a case to a higher court for review.

Front 28

When does the federal judiciary have jurisdiction in a legal case?

Back 28

The federal judiciary has jurisdiction in cases that involve the Constitution, federal statutes, and national treaties. It also has jurisdiction in cases that involve citizens of different states and cases that involve foreign governments or citizens of foreign countries.

Front 29

Why did Alexander Hamilton argue that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous branch of government"?

Back 29

because it would not have the power to enforce its decisions.

Front 30

Describe the basic structure of the federal judiciary.

Back 30

The federal judiciary consists of 3 levels of courts:
1. district courts and courts created by Congress for specific purposes.
2. Appellate courts. There are 13 courts of appeals at the federal level: 12 courts that serve geographical areas known as circuits as well as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears cases that originate in specific lower courts, such as the Court of International Trade.
3. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeals in the federal judicial system.

Front 31

Does the Suprem Court serve only as a court of appeal?

Back 31

No. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in some matters, including cases that involve ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls of foreign governments, as well as cases in which a state is a party.

Front 32

How are justices appointed to the Supreme Court?

Back 32

Under the Constitution, the president has the authority to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. The Senate, however, has the authority to give its advice and consent to the president, and it may either affirm or reject the president's judicial nominees by way of a majority vote.

Front 33

What is the practice of senatorial courtesy?

Back 33

Senatorial courtesy is the traditional practice that gives a senator the right to veto a federal district court nominee in his or her home state. This courtesy is extended only to those senators who are from the same political party as the president.

Front 34

Do a majority of Supreme Court justices have to agree before the Court will accept a case to review?

Back 34

No. Only 4 of 9 justices must support a writ of certiorari, or an order that signals agreement to review a case, before the Supreme Court will grant trial.

Front 35

What happens when the Supreme Court remands a case?

Back 35

When a case is remanded, the Supreme Court sends it back to a lower court for further consideration or a new trial.

Front 36

List and briefly explain the types of opinions that the Supreme Court may issue when it makes a decision.

Back 36

1. Unanimous opinion is one in which all of the justices agree with a decision and the legal reasoning supporting it.
2. Majority opinion explains the legal reasoning of the majority of the justices who support a decision.
3. Concurring opinion is written by one or more justices who agree with the majority but have different legal reasons for doing so.
4. Dissenting opinion explains the legal reasoning of one or more justices who voted against a Suprem Court decision.

Front 37

What is the difference between the adversarial system of justice and the inquisitorial system of justice? Which system is used in the US?

Back 37

The adversarial system of justice relies upon an impartial judge or jury to decide between the competing parties in a legal case. The judge is viewed as a neutral referee between these parties. In the inquisitorial system, the judge both prosecutes and decides a case. The American legal tradition is based upon the adversarial system.

Front 38

What is the Supremacy Clause?

Back 38

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article 6 of the Constitution, provides that federal law takes precedence over state law if the two are in conflict. Federal law includes the Constitution, federal statutes, and national treaties.

Front 39

How has the common law tradition shaped the American legal system?

Back 39

The American legal system draws upon the common law tradition, which provides that judges consider prevailing customs and laws when reaching decisions. In such a tradition, past judicial decisions, or precedents, are sources of law. This tradition gives judges a very important role in the legal system since their decisions can have the effect of making new law.

Front 40

What are the two doctrines that judges may follow when exercising their power of judicial review?

Back 40

Judicial activism, the first of these doctrines, suggests that judges should interpret the law broadly if necessary. Moreover, it states that judges should be willing to use their authority to limit the actions taken by the other branches of government. In contrast, the doctrine of judicial restraint suggests that judges should show deference to the other branches of government and rely upon narrow interpretations of the law when making decisions.

Front 41

What legal evidence do strict constructionists think should guide federal judges when they are making decisions? Why do critics challenge this approach?

Back 41

Strict constructionists think that federal judges should try to identify the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and/or the legislative intent of Congress when making decisions about the constitutionality of a particular law. Critics argue that it is difficult to identify a single intent behind the actions of the framers or the members of Congress.