Consitutitional Law Topics
By: Mike on Jan 20, 2012 06:15:09 PM
1.According to the constitution, who has the authority to establish courts?
 Congress has the authority to establish Art I courts which are basically administrative courts like EEOC.


2.In section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress extends the jurisdiction of the Supreme court. What powers does it give to the Supreme court that aren't already in the constitution?

The Constitution, creates the Art III courts which is the Supreme Court, but  congress has plenary power to give and remove over article iii courts but may not preclude review of an entire class of cases.

3.According to article 3, section 2, does Congress have the authority to change the jurisdiction of the Supreme court , as it has done in the Judiciary Act of 1789?

The Constitution, creates the Art III courts which is the Supreme Court, but  congress has plenary power to give and remove over article iii courts but may not preclude review of an entire class of cases.

4.If the constitution and an act of congress contradict each other ,which one would people obey?Why?
Order of law goes as follows: Constitution-->Congressional Law-->Executive Order/Treatise whichever is the latest one --> Case Law (Determined by the highest court) --> Local Law (But this depends on what kind of court made the law, so for example a local court made a ruling, and there is a local law both are equal. But if not a local court and lets say its a higher state court then that case law may be used to explain local law.  But if it is a Supreme Court than that ruling will determining law unless the erie doctrine applies which relates to substantive state law etc)


5.Does the supreme court have the power to issue a writ of mandamus? What did this mean for Marbury

Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. In the American legal system it must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.

Thus, holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established. The petition was therefore denied.

6. When one branch of government does something that seems to go against the constitution, how is the conflict resolved?

This is a awkwardly worded question but what you mean to ask is checks and balances and how the Judicial Branch, Supreme Court really has the last say in the matter. 

View Comments


Leave Comment
After logging in, you can add comments
Michael Mordechai YadegariReviewsout of 83 reviews