1. Explain how Article III of the U.S. Constitution, '[t]he judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish' was a compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
Article III in the U.S. Constitution states that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). However, giving Congress the power to create inferior courts caused for a compromise between states’ rights advocates, also known as Anti-Federalists and Federalist. The Anti-Federalists believed that state courts should be able to hear all cases first and the federal supreme …show more content…
Since the bill allowed for the establishment of lower federal courts, it was a win for Federalist in their debate with the Anti-Federalist because it permitted a compromise between the two advocates on many issues. The textbook gives a great example on one of these comprisable issues, “the act placed significant limitations on federal trial court jurisdiction, due to the Anti-Federalists’ concerns about an overbearing judiciary” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). The Judiciary Act also satisfied Anti-Federalist by stipulating boundaries on federal and circuit courts and “connected” federal courts in a way to the political culture of states. The act also required federal district judges to be residents in their own districts. Also, another important aspect to consider is courts that are established under the Article III of the Constitution are considered or referred to Article III
Article III in the U.S. Constitution states that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). However, giving Congress the power to create inferior courts caused for a compromise between states’ rights advocates, also known as Anti-Federalists and Federalist. The Anti-Federalists believed that state courts should be able to hear all cases first and the federal supreme …show more content…
Since the bill allowed for the establishment of lower federal courts, it was a win for Federalist in their debate with the Anti-Federalist because it permitted a compromise between the two advocates on many issues. The textbook gives a great example on one of these comprisable issues, “the act placed significant limitations on federal trial court jurisdiction, due to the Anti-Federalists’ concerns about an overbearing judiciary” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). The Judiciary Act also satisfied Anti-Federalist by stipulating boundaries on federal and circuit courts and “connected” federal courts in a way to the political culture of states. The act also required federal district judges to be residents in their own districts. Also, another important aspect to consider is courts that are established under the Article III of the Constitution are considered or referred to Article III