Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution talks about the Judiciary Branch. This is what was intended by the founders in setting up the court system in this country. Let's take a look, shall we?
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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
So, what does this say about judges and our courts? Well, it is pretty clear. All judicial power lies within the courts and those courts are made up of the Supreme Court and any other court Congress chooses to define. This does not include state courts which deal with state laws but only the federal court system. So, as an aside, if Congress were truly upset with Bush for using military tribunals or secret courts to try terrorists at Guantanamo or anywhere else, it is the Congress and only the Congress that has the power to establish a court to carry out these trials. Hmm... why didn't they do it then? Oh wait, they did and they still want to say that these trials are shams. So, the judiciary branch did its job here by saying the executive was overstepping its authority and the Congress did its job by establishing a court to do this job, but somewhere along the lines, the current courts became vilified due to their supposed association with the Bush administration when in fact, they were established by Congress. Huh. Now, off my soapbox, what else does this article say? Basically, that judges can't receive a pay cut while in office and they can't break the law (good behavior). Pretty simple. Now for section 2:
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The first part of this section clearly outlines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This has been altered by the 11th amendment, so we'll revisit this section obviously.
The second part of this section, what constitutes original jurisdiction versus what constitutes appellate jurisdiction is differentiated with the caveat that Congress can regulate exceptions to this. This seems like a clear indication that Congress could have regulated away the concept of judicial review a long time ago if they really didn't want it. Sure, history records there was some grumbling about this, but Congress clearly had authority over this matter and they didn't exercise it, so judicial review stays, along with a lot of other jurisdictional issues.
The third part here clearly delineates the federalist concept. Congress shall create courts to deal with issues that cross state lines or occur on federal property but if a crime is committed solely in one state, it is the laws of that state, not federal law that takes precedence which is why each state has its own court system, independent of the federal judiciary. In addition, this part generally outlines that all criminal trials must be done by a jury. This is constitutional and comes in the section before courts are defined separately between the states, therefore, in my opinion, it follows that it applies to the states as well. Now, the final section of article 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
What is this saying, really? Obviously it defines treason. Based on the constitutional definition, the word treason gets thrown around an awful lot by both parties in cases where it is clear it is not. In fact, treason is intentionally defined very narrowly because the founders had seen it used to justify all sorts of heinous acts under the monarchy. However, there are a few other things to note. For instance, to be convicted, there must be two witnesses. This is required. No ifs, ands or buts, except confession in open court (who is stupid enough to do that?). Finally, Congress determines the punishment for treason but what does this final clause mean? The framers also had cause to worry about treasonous acts being blamed on an entirely family or group and so they wrote it into the constitution that treason could not include "corruption of blood," or that the children and relatives of the traitor not be considered traitorous simply by relation. In addition, the "no forfeiture" clause basically means that once the traitor dies, "payment" for the crime ends. This is all pretty simple and the judicial branches independence under the constitution is important for our freedoms, when the judiciary chooses to enforce the law and not create law. Of course, any time the court acts on something, Congress can override it unless it is specifically prohibited them in the constitution. This doesn't usually happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment