The Courts, the Constitution and the Federalist papers

I thnk I have a pretty good background in the federalist papers and it is on those very papers that has been a heavy influence on the opinions I hold re the courts, their powrs, their responsibilities, as well as that of Congress and the Executive branch. So what do you base your opinions on?

And could you please cite the article or amendment of the Constitution that creates the federal court system other than the Supreme Court?

Fox

Quote:

:

Art 3
Section 1.


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 Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Constitution creates the court system including lower (inferior) courts. Congress gets to create the exact lower courts later which it did in creating district and circuit courts. It continues to change the lower courts as needed to deal with work load etc.

Quote:

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

In Section 2 the power of the courts is defined. The SAME power goes to all inferior courts as well as to the Supreme court. Note the use of "The Judicial Power" in the first and send clauses. "Judicial Power" includes all inferior courts later set up by Congress.

Thank you. And as you see, Congress establishes the 'inferior Coursts' and such courts and Article I also states that it shall be Congress charged

Quote:

:
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

It is the prerogative of Congress, not the Executive branch and not the judicial branch of government, to make laws and it is the responsibility of the Executive branch and the judicial branch to stay within the parameters of the laws passed by Congress. Activist judges go beyond and expand the letter and intent of the law and this is a practice I think everybody should continue to speak out against and condemn. In no place in the Constitution is the judicial branch given authority to make new law.

Art 3
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.

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.

Stare decisis is the doctrine of precident: When an issue has been before a court in the past, and a ruling exists on an issue, the courts will, as a general rule, abide by that prior ruling. This is not the same as "making law."

According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State. Its propriety having been drawn into question by the adversaries of that plan, is no light symptom of the rage for objection, which disorders their imaginations and judgments. The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.

Ticomaya wrote:

Stare decisis is the doctrine of precident: When an issue has been before a court in the past, and a ruling exists on an issue, the courts will, as a general rule, abide by that prior ruling. This is not the same as "making law."

Not exactly the same way legislatures make law, but courts are in a sense "making law" when the precedent is heavily relied upon in deciding future cases.