Please write 200 words or more and use APA style for any references.
2. List and define several approaches to constitutional interpretation. Discuss the pros and cons of the Supreme Court being the chief, if not the only, expositor of the Constitution and its interpretation. What types of constitutional interpretation were used in Scott v. Sandford? In Marbury v. Madison?
3. In the case where federal courts would appear to have jurisdiction, one or more requirements may prevent a federal court from accepting and deciding a case. Summarize the Ashwander rules that outline these requirements. What must exist in order for a federal court to accept jurisdiction?
4. Outline and explain the steps for understanding and analyzing a case. What elements are essential to creating a thorough analysis? How does each element help the Supreme Court justices focus on the information that is most relevant to the case?
5. Discuss the facts and issues in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Then, explain and evaluate Chief Justice John Marshall's reasoning in support of the Supreme Court's assumption of the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. Discuss the doctrine of judicial review (in this case and also in principle).
What are the jurisdictional requirements for filing lawsuits in federal and state courts?
These are grouped largely according to the topic of the case. Issues concerning constitutionality, multi-state disputes, treaties and bankruptcy are normally taken by the federal system. On the other hand, family law, criminal cases and real estate law is state-focused. Federal courts deal with all federal law as it applies to states of individuals. Litigation between residents of two different states also go to the federal level.
List and define several approaches to constitutional interpretation. Discuss the pros and cons of the Supreme Court being the chief, if not the only, expositor of the Constitution and its interpretation. What types of constitutional interpretation were used in Scott v. Sandford? In Marbury v. Madison?
Such issues are matters of political ideology. Activist courts seem to appeal to the left, since they can remake specific laws of moral significance with the claim that there is some "gap" in the Constitution that might have been irrelevant then, but is relevant now. Conservatives, however, demand a strict constructionist approach that uses the intent of the founders, manifest in the Federalist and similar documents, as to how basic provisions are to be understood. Strict construction can be subdivided into Originalist and Textualist subunits, the former specifically dealing with intent, while the latter is concerned with the literal use of language in the document itself. These easily overlap.
Strict constructionists would argue that any gaps are up to the legislature to fill, not the courts who, precisely because of the lack of constitutional mention, implies that its none of the court's business.
The Scott case held that federal law had no standing in recently acquired territories and hence, had nothing to say on the question of slavery. Marbury is well known as the case that permitted the Supreme Court to review Congressional legislation, or in this case, the president's judicial nominees. ...
The solution discusses the jurisdictional requirements for filing lawsuits.