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. 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. One account thinks of Article III as guaranteeing federal judicial authority, while another interpretation understands Article III to permit a great deal of congressional control over jurisdiction.
In addition, Article III also protects jury decision-making by requiring a jury trial in federal criminal prosecutions, with the trial to take place in the state where the crimes were committed.
Yet case law and interpretation read Article III as protecting values of openness and judicial independence. Within the structure marked out by Article III, large swaths of extensive congressional regulation of federal court jurisdiction have existed without great controversy since the enactment of the Judiciary Act of Take diversity jurisdiction, which the Constitution provides without mentioning anything about how much is at stake.
In fact, most of the law of federal court jurisdiction is statutory rather than constitutional in nature, and to determine the boundaries of federal court jurisdiction, one should begin by looking at statutes enacted by Congress. A second is what kinds of cases fall within the descriptions. The fourth is whether, once the federal courts have jurisdiction, that authority also provides them with the power to decide the underlying obligations of the parties.
The fifth question focuses on remedies: what are the powers of Congress to limit or expand the remedial authority of courts?
Answers—whether right or wrong—are often blurry and shift over time. But does that mean that if an ambassador seeks to divorce a spouse, a federal court has jurisdiction? The Supreme Court has said not, and thus reads the language as not mandating that such cases can come only into a federal court. But what waterways count? And if a boat is docked and treated like a house, do the federal courts have jurisdiction?
Recent decisions have not been unanimous on these very issues. But if a lawsuit is brought against an employee of the Postal Service, is the United States a party? Likewise, while the Constitution specifies that the federal judicial power extends to controversies between two states, a body of decisions debate the question of when a state is a party, and whether, for example, a regional body co-run by a few states can have access to federal courts by virtue of this provision.
Congress has the power to create and organize the lower federal courts. Today, there are lower federal courts in every state. A case is filed and tried in the federal district courts and in some specialty courts, such as admiralty or bankruptcy courts. The trial courts look at the facts of the case and decide guilt or innocence or which side is right in an argument or dispute.
The courts of appeal hear appeals of the losing parties.
0コメント