Article III of USA Constitution and Judicial Powers: An Analysis

This essay analyzes the provisions of Article III of USA Constitution and relevant cases to understand the judicial powers of USA. It discusses the separation of powers doctrine and the types of cases that can be heard by the Supreme Court and other central courts.

Running head: ESSAY 0
CONSTITUTOIONAL LAW
STUDENT DETAILS:

ESSAY 1
The Constitution of USA is considered as supreme law of USA. The United State
Constitution initially comprises seven articles, defines the state government structure. The
first three articles of USA Constitution exemplify separation of powers doctrine, whereby
the federal government is separated in 3 branches. These three branches are legislative,
comprising of the bicameral Congress, an executive including president, and judicial,
comprising the Supreme Court and other national court. The Constitution of USA does not
refer in the direct manner to the meaning of USA Constitution and manner of interpretation
regarding the specific cases. In the following parts, this problem is enlightened with the
provisions of Article III of USA Constitution with relevant cases.
The Constitution of United States is a remarkable document. There are three major
purposes of the Constitution of USA. The first purpose is to make the balance among the
three branches namely legislative, executive, and judicial. The second purpose is to separate
the powers between the state government and the central government. The third purpose is to
secure numerous personal rights of the citizens of United States. The structure of Constitution
of United State owes much to the history Constitution that managed to the drafting. The
limits made on federal government and every branch was the response to the oppression of
British rules, and particularly the oppression of the particular sovereign.
The Article III of the United State Constitution creates and authorizes the central
government’s judicial division. Constitution of United States permits the judicial powers of
USA to the Supreme Court and lesser courts that can be established by the
Parliament. President employs the central magistrates for the lifetime. It is required to be
confirmed by the Congress. In the initial sentences of Article III of United State Constitution,
it is said that Judicial power of USA, mean to be conferred in one Supreme Court, and lower
courts as the Parliament can rule and establish timely.
As per the Constitution of United States, the central courts are courts of restricted
authority. The courts can consider only the cases or the arguments that means that they may
not execute non-judicial function and provide suggestion to Congress or President regarding
the constitutionality of planned action. Thus, the courts may not consider all types of the
matters or cases, but only the listed as in given judicial powers of USA, as mentioned under
the Article III of Constitution of United States. The types of matters recorded in Article III of
Constitution of USA were selected to secure several interest of the USA. The central courts
are also matter of spirit of Congress as far as it may separate and bound authority of several
central court.
The central court has a power not entertained by other courts in other nations. These
courts can state the act enacted by Congress to be in contravention of the United State
Constitution and consequently void or illegal. In year 1803, the Supreme Court created these
powers of judicial review, in the milestone case of Marbury v. Madison1, In case where
Supreme Court pronounces the Congressional Statute unlawful, usually the only manner to
modify this outcome is to utilise the complex procedure of amendment of the USA
Constitution. Though the Supreme Court is in one sense the final mediator of the meaning of
the United State Constitution, these powers are not limitless. The Court may not implement
its decisions without assistance or support of executive division, and is matter, as a minimum
in certain degree, to regulate over the dominion by Parliament. The Court itself has
surrendered powers to understand some Constitutional areas, saying that is dedicated by USA
1 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

ESSAY 2
Constitution to other government divisions. For an example, the courts have decided that
powers to see knowledge of Congress members has commanded by the United States
Constitution exclusively to Congress itself, and has denied to behave in these cases2.
The Article III of USA Constitution specifies that the Judicial Powers of USA is required to
be conferred in the Supreme Court and in lesser Courts as the Congress may develop timely.
The magistrates of the Supreme Court and lower courts must hold workplaces due to the
good performance, and will, at specified Periods, obtain for the Services the Reimbursement
that will not be reduced during their Extension in the workplace.
Section 1 of the Article III of the USA Constitution specifies that powers to
understand laws of the USA will be held by the Supreme Court of United States, and inferior
central court. The lower court will be established timely by the Parliament. The Constitution
of United States itself made only the Supreme Court, but permitted the Congress to make
other, lower courts over period. In the case where the caseload of the Supreme Court
increased, the Congress was capable to establish the inferior central courts. The Central
judges will hold workplace due to good behaviour and they will receive reimbursement for
the service. Once they are employed, the central magistrates will remain in the workplace due
to good conduct. In conclusion, most central magistrates serve a lifetime. Further, when they
employed, their pays may not be reduced or declined. It secures the magistrates from being
influenced by their income3.
The section 2 of the Article III of USA Constitution specifies that the judicial powers should
outspread to various matters, in equity and in laws, rising in Constitution of USA, law of
USA, and treaties made, or which should be created, under their authority. These judicial
powers should also extend to all the cases influencing representatives, ministers, and
ambassadors and to various matters of admiralty and marine Jurisdictions. They are also
required to extend controversies to which USA should be the Party. The powers should be
extended to disagreements between two or more than two federations like between state and
residents of other state or, between residents of two state or, between residents of similar
states demanding lands under grants of two or more than two states or, between the states and
their citizens, or foreign states, residents or subjects4.
It is explained by section 2 of the Article III of USA Constitution that jurisdiction is the
powers of a courts to consider the matters, so the section 2 specifies what types of matters or
disputes will be heard by Supreme Court and other central court. The types of the matters or
cases are as follows-
1. Each case, which arises in USA Constitution, laws of USA or its agreements.
2. Each case that affects American representatives, public administrators, and public
ambassadors
3. Each case of admiralty and nautical dominion
4. Each case, where USA is the party
2 William Quirk, and Bridwell Randall, Judicial Dictatorship (Routledge 2017)
3 Elliott Oring, Jokes and their relations (Routledge 2017)
4Edward Corwin, The Doctrine of Judicial Review: its legal and historical basis and other essays (Routledge
2017)

ESSAY 3
5. Each case, which include one state or more than one state, or the residents of these
states
6. All the disputes between residents of similar states who are requesting lands under
contributions from different states
7. Featured parts were modified by eleventh amendment, which states that the legal
powers of USA do not permit states to be sued by the residents of different states, or
by residents or matters of the foreign state5.
Further, Section 2 of Article III of USA Constitution states that Supreme Court should have
real authority in the matters influencing representatives, public ministers, and diplomats and
the matters where state should be the party. In the previous stated other matters, the Supreme
Court will have appellate authority, to the facts and laws, with these exclusions, and under
these rules and regulations as Parliament should make6.
As per the explanation of Section 2 of Article III of USA Constitution, Section 2 of Article III
of USA Constitution also notes that Supreme Court will have real authority in the matter
dealing with or influencing the representative, public ministers, or ambassador, or where the
state is the party. It explains that the real authority is powers of courts to consider the case at
priority basis. It means that, in any matter dealing with the communities of public servants of
public, the Supreme Court should necessarily hear the cases at primary basis and no inferior
courts may do it. Further, it also explains that the number of real local authorities matters
heard by the USA Supreme Court is less than one percent of all their matters.
Additionally, the Supreme Court will have appellate jurisdiction in each matter. An
Appellate jurisdiction is power to consider the dispute or matter after the decision given by
the inferior court in the respective case or matter or dispute. In present time, the vast popular
matters heard by Supreme Court of USA are appellate matters. Supreme Court is considered
as court of last resort. The court of last resort means that final court where the resident, states
or other entities may have their matters or disputes heard. The Supreme Court is a central
court to consider the original jurisdiction and as well as appellate jurisdiction.
Furthermore, Section 2 of Article III of USA Constitution Continued that hearing of
offences excluding the accusation cases, should be by Juries, and these hearings should be
conducted in state where these offences should have made, but when not conducted within
the state7. The hearing should be at this place as the Parliament can by laws have focused. As
per the explanation of Section 2 of Article III of USA Constitution, this section states that in
hearing all offences, except accusation, the defendant has rights to the hearing by juries8. The
hearings are held in state, where offence is conducted. Accusation is a procedure defined in
the Constitution by which high officials of the governments of United Sates can be alleged,
5 Samantha Block, ‘Defying Debarment: Judicial Review of Agency Suspension and Debarment
Actions’ [2018] George Washington Law Review 86
6 Theunis Roux, The Politico-Legal Dynamics of Judicial Review: A Comparative Analysis. (Cambridge
University Press 2018)
7Tiberiu Dragu and Board Oliver, ‘On judicial review in a separation of powers system’ [2015] Political
Science Research and Methods 3
8 Peter Schuck, Citizens, strangers, and in-betweens: essays on immigration and citizenship (Routledge 2018)

ESSAY 4
tried, and removed from the workplace for misbehaviour; the Councils is liable for
examination and formal accusation, and the Council is liable for hearing9.
Section 3 of Article III of USA Constitution states that treachery against the USA, must
comprise only in imposing war, or in following the opponents, providing them assistance and
relaxation10. No individual should be sentenced of treachery if on testimony of two Witness to
the similar obvious Acts, or on declaration of guilt in open courts. The Parliament should
have powers to announce the sentence or fine of treachery, but no attainder of treachery
should work corruption, or penalty excluding through life of individual attainted11.
Plessy v. Ferguson12, was the milestone judgement of USA Supreme Court issued in year
1896. It supported constitutionality of national separation laws for general amenities as long
as separated amenities were equivalent in excellence, a principle which came to be
considered as distinct but equal. This legitimized various laws recreating cultural separation
that had enacted in American South after the end of reconstruction period. Plessy is widely
considered as bad decision in the history of United State Supreme Court. Notwithstanding its
ignominy, the judgement has never openly domineered. Though, the series of following
judgements beginning with year 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka13,. In
this case, it is held that the separate but equivalent principle is undemocratic in respect of the
school and learning amenities have strictly deteriorated it to points that it is normally
regarded to have de facto domineered.
In limestone USA Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka14, the court
ordered that state have instituting separate school for black and white people to be unlawful.
This judgement successfully upturned the judgment in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson15,
which permitted state-sponsored separation, insofar as it useful to learning and education for
public. The unanimous judgement of warren court specified that "distinct learning amenities
are fundamentally inadequate." As per consequences, de jure racial separation was ruled the
contravention of same security of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of United Sates.
This governing surfaced the manner for incorporation and was the main triumph of the Civil
Rights Movements and the model for many forthcoming effects for legal matters. Though,
the judgement of 14 pages did not influence any sort of way for finishing national separation
in the institutes, and second order of the court in Brown II16only well-ordered state to
integrate with all measured speed.
9 Ian Turner, ‘Working smart and hard? Agency effort, judicial review, and policy precision’ [2017] Journal of
Theoretical Politics 29
10 Susan Miller, Ringsmuth Eve, and Little Joshua, ‘Pushing constitutional limits in the US States: Legislative
professionalism and judicial review of state laws by the US Supreme Court’ [2015] State Politics & Policy
Quarterly 15
11 Justin Fox, and Stephenson Matthew, ‘The welfare effects of minority-protective judicial review’ [2015]
Journal of Theoretical Politics 27
12 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
13 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
14 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
15 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
16 349 U.S. 294 (1955)

ESSAY 5
The case of McCulloch v. Maryland17 is first and significant Supreme Court case on the
central powers. In this matter, it was held by the Supreme Court that Parliament has inferred
power taken from the listed in the section 8 of Article I of United States Constitution. The
necessary and adequate clause provided legislature the powers to create the national bank.
Further, Obergefell v. Hodges18, is a milestone civil powers case, where the Supreme Court
of USA ruled that basic rights to get married is assured to similar-sex couples with the help of
by due Procedure clause and equivalent security clause of the fourteenth amendment to USA
Constitution.
Furthermore, Gibbons v. Ogden19, was milestone judgement, where it was held by the USA
Supreme Court that powers to control federal trade, permitted to Parliament by the Trade
Clause of the USA Constitution, contained powers to legalise navigation. In the case
of United States v. Lopez20, it was held by court that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990
was illegal. The reason is that the United State Parliament, in passing the legislature, had
surpassed its authorities under the trade clause21.
As per the above analysis, it can be concluded that the judicial review is the best-known
powers of the Supreme Court of USA or the capability of the courts to announce the Law-
making act or Executive act in contravention of the Constitution of USA, is not found within
the text of Constitution itself. The reason is that the powers of judicial review may announce
that law and acts of local state, or the central governments are not valid if they encounter with
the United State Constitution22. It also provides court the powers to proclaim the act of
the executives or legislatives to be unlawful.
17 (1819)
18 576 U.S. (2015)
19 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)
20 (1995)
21 Mark Tushnet, Comparative constitutional law (Oxford, 2017)
22 Sean Gailmard and Patty John, "Participation, process and policy: the informational value of politicised
judicial review. [2017] Journal of Public Policy 37

ESSAY 6
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Statutes and statutory instruments
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990
EU legislation and cases
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015)
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Secondary Sources
Books
Corwin, Edward, The Doctrine of Judicial Review: its legal and historical basis and other
essays (Routledge 2017)
Oring, Elliott, Jokes and their relations (Routledge 2017)
Quirk, William, and Randall, Bridwell, Judicial Dictatorship (Routledge 2017)
Roux, Theunis, The Politico-Legal Dynamics of Judicial Review: A Comparative Analysis.
(Cambridge University Press 2018)
Schuck, Peter, Citizens, strangers, and in-betweens: essays on immigration and citizenship
(Routledge 2018)
Tushnet, Mark, Comparative constitutional law (Oxford 2017)
Journal articles
Block, Samantha, ‘Defying Debarment: Judicial Review of Agency Suspension and
Debarment Actions’ [2018] George Washington Law Review 86

ESSAY 7
Dragu, Tiberiu, and Oliver, Board, ‘On judicial review in a separation of powers
system’ [2015] Political Science Research and Methods 3
Fox, Justin, and Matthew, Stephenson, ‘The welfare effects of minority-protective judicial
review’ [2015] Journal of Theoretical Politics 27
Gailmard, Sean, and John, Patty, "Participation, process and policy: the informational value
of politicised judicial review. [2017] Journal of Public Policy 37
Miller, Susan, Eve, Ringsmuth, and Joshua, Little, ‘Pushing constitutional limits in the US
States: Legislative professionalism and judicial review of state laws by the US Supreme
Court’ [2015] State Politics & Policy Quarterly 15
Turner, Ian, ‘Working smart and hard? Agency effort, judicial review, and policy precision’
[2017] Journal of Theoretical Politics 29