Origins of the Federal Judiciary: Essays on the Judiciary Act of 1789Maeva Marcus Oxford University Press, 1992年5月21日 - 320 頁 The Judiciary Act of 1789 established a federal court system, an experiment that became one of the outstanding features of American democracy. Yet little has been written about the origins of the Act. This volume of essays analyzes the Act from political and legal perspectives while enhancing our understanding of the history of the judiciary and its role in the constitutional interpretation. |
內容
| 3 | |
| 13 | |
2 Jurisdiction Stripping and the Judiciary Act of 1789 | 40 |
The Lost Dimension of Marshall Court Sovereignty Cases | 66 |
Presumptuous Evidence Too Many Lawyers and a Federal Common Law Crime | 106 |
Judge and Jury in a Republican Society | 173 |
A View From Hayburns Case | 196 |
Section 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act and Judicial Federalism | 223 |
The Iconography of Judgment and American Culture | 248 |
9 The Judiciary Act of 1789 and Judicial Independence | 281 |
Index | 299 |
其他版本 - 查看全部
常見字詞
1st Cong admiralty ambassador amendments American Annals of Congress appears appellate jurisdiction April argued argument Article Article III authority Brutus Brutus"'s Caleb Strong Callender Chase Chief Justice circuit courts clause coextensive congressional Constitution coterminous power theory County Courthouse crimes criminal debates decisions district dual office holding Edmund Randolph essay executive federal common law federal courts federal judges federal judiciary federal question Federalist Fisher Ames Framers George George Hammond Goebel Guillioux Hayburn's Historical Society History House Ibid independent indictment Iredell issue James Madison John Joseph Ravara Judiciary Act judiciary bill language Law Review lawyers legislative power legislature Library of Congress lower federal courts Marshall Court Massachusetts McCulloch ment Murdock notes Number Oliver Ellsworth original jurisdiction Papers Pennsylvania Philadelphia political post office president principle Ravara Rawle Rawle's republican Samuel Chase Section 25 Senate sovereignty Stat statute structure Supreme Court Thomas Jefferson tion Tucker United States Supreme vested Virginia William Maclay William Rawle
熱門章節
第 193 頁 - that the laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.
第 213 頁 - The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.
第 97 頁 - Judicial power, as contradistinguished from the power of the laws, has no existence. Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law ; and when that is discerned, it is the duty of the court to follow it.
第 54 頁 - ... saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it...
第 97 頁 - Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge ; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature, or, in other words, to the will of the law.
第 131 頁 - The fashionable circles of Philadelphia, New York, Boston and Charleston, (natural aristocrats.) 2. Merchants trading on British capital. 3. Paper men, (all the old tories are found in some one of the three descriptions.) On the other side are, 1. Merchants trading on their own capital. 2. Irish merchants. 3. Tradesmen, mechanics, farmers, and every other possible description of our citizens.
第 87 頁 - ... may be so considered. In reasoning upon it as an abstract question, there would, probably, exist no contrariety of opinion respecting it. Every argument, proving the necessity of the department, proves also the propriety of giving this extent to it. We do not mean to say that the jurisdiction of the courts of the union should be construed to be coextensive with the legislative merely because it is fit that it should be so ; but we mean to say that this fitness furnishes an argument in construing...