All papers are checked via
|← Scottsboro: An American Tragedy||Michael Crowe Case →|
Federal court system works in US. There are two distinct and separate types of the judicial systems that cognizance over sundry and various legal matters and issues that come to effect from time to time and affects every day person living or even working in the United States of America: the federal court system that enforces laws within the federal government, also applies regulations and rules plus interpreting the constitution in US. We also have the court systems which interpret, enforce rules and regulations of a given state plus interpreting the constitution of each state (William, 1997). Furthermore, legal disputes solving and vindicating of the legal rights are always key roles and goals of both the courts. The paper discusses the federal system and the court system of US. There is comparison between the court systems of California State with the federal court system of America. It elaborates how the courts functions and the power of each court. The hierarchy in the systems of court is also discussed in details through comparing the Californian states court system and the American federal court system. The discussion also touches on the jurisdiction of both systems. Then, the paper ends with conclusion on the way the courts function.
The trial courts
The general jurisdiction trial courts in states system. They usually hear cases outside jurisdiction of trial courts of the limited jurisdiction. They mostly involve criminal and civil cases and use one judge always sitting with a jury.
Intermediate appellate courts
Many of the states intermediate appellate courts are between the trial courts of the general jurisdiction and highest court in state.
Highest state courts
All the states have some of the sort highest court. They are usually referred to as the high courts. In US the highest and intermediate appellate courts have discretionary review on whether to accept the case or not.
Federal question of jurisdiction
The congress is conferred upon the federal courts and the jurisdiction to be deciding federal questions i.e., controversies or cases that arise under the laws and constitution of the United States and the cases or controversies various citizens from different states (diversity jurisdiction) whereby, the presumption against federal jurisdiction is witnessed.
In the cases on diversity, subject matter jurisdictions of federal courts are defined by parties to lawsuit and are rather than subject matter of the underlying dispute. The federal subject matter of jurisdiction exists in the cases where opposing parties are the citizens of different states amounting in controversy. Citizenship is synonymous with the domicile whereby the domicile means the physical presence in state that is coupled with the intent in residing there indefinitely. Within the parties, there must be a complete diversity of citizenship on each side. The complete diversity rule holds that there must be no jurisdiction when any of the parties on one side of dispute is a citizen from the same state as any of the party from the other state (Daniel, 1991). If there is any plaintiff sharing a common citizenship with any of the defendants, diversity is destroyed with the federal jurisdiction along it.
Comparison between the court systems of California State with the US federal court system
The constitution of US is the supreme law in America. It comprises of federal systems of government sharing power between federal governments with states governments. Due to the federalism, both federal government and each state government have their own systems.
The structure of the federal court system according to article III of the US constitution, there is investment of the judicial power in US federal court. Section one of this article creates the Supreme Court in the US giving the congress power to create lower federal courts. On the other hand, according to the laws and constitution of the California State have established state courts. The court of last resort (Supreme Court) is the highest court in California; followed by the intermediate court, lastly, intermediate court of appeals and the trial courts accordingly.
Secondly, according to federal system of courts, the parties disgruntled with the decision of district courts, courts of claims, and international trade courts in US are allowed to appeal to court of appeals in US (Roy & Donald, 2002). On the other hand, the parties in the California state that are dissatisfied with trial court decisions are only allowed to take their cases to intermediate appeal courts. Third, the federal court system in the US is the final judge of the questions to the federal constitution while in the courts system in California; parties are given option to request the highest state court in hearing the case again and only few cases that are eligible are the ones allowed to be reviewed by Supreme Court.
In addition to federal court system, the California state has its own system of court. Some of the localities like cities and counties have their own systems as well. Moreover, the federal courts rulings are authoritative interpretations of the federal than state courts while Supreme Court has final definitive issues that regard federal civil rights law while the California state courts address federal laws sometimes, the interpretations of the federal law that generally carries more of the persuasive weight. They both handle cases within the states and federal constitution. Lastly federal courts may also hear cases that concern states if the state violates the law according to federal constitution while on the other hand the state law cannot handle violated cases by the federal court system.
In conclusion, we found out that the federal government is powerful than my state (California) court system. The power is distributed depending on the hierarchy of the courts and the systems helps in controlling and protecting the constitution of the U.S.