how does the supreme court determine the meaning of the constitution and the nature of federalism?
339456
It is the responsibility of the Court to interpret the Constitution as they feel it most appropriately applies to any case.  There are varied thoughts on whether they should act as they feel the framers meant the Constitution to work or whether modern day interpretations are best.
541653
There is only one Supreme Court of the United States.  Each State may also have its own Supreme Court to be the final authority on State Law, but the Federal Court system has only one Supreme Court.\n\nThe Supreme Court issues the highest ruling which cannot be appealed.  You can't present a case directly to the Supreme Court.  You have to present a case that says a lower court incorrectly ruled on a case.  Then the Supreme Court has to agree to hear the case.  If they do hear it, they'll issue a ruling that either lets the lower court's ruling stand, sends it back to the lower court for reconsideration (sometimes with additional instruction), or they may overturn the lower court's decision.
896956
Federal trump state. State trumps local. Constitution trumps statute. Statute trumps case law.\n\nSo, from the top -- federal constitutional text, then US Supreme Court interpreting federal constitution, then federal statute, then other federal case law, then state constitution, etc....\n\nAs far as one state relative to another, neither is binding on the other.
758022
Assuming you are taking about the United States government...\n\nThe federal government derives its power from the states.  Any powers not granted to the federal government by the states (in the US Constitution) are reserved for the states.  The 10th amendment to the Constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  That is why the US government is known as a government of enumerated powers- if the federal government wants to do something they have to find a way to justify that action in the Constitution (which they are pretty good at doing).
951504
Supremacy Clause\nFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia\nJump to: navigation, search\nArticle VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause:\n\n"This Constitution, and the law of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." \nThe Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or Constitutions conflict with the clause.
998015
Each state has trial courts, they handle state issues.  From there cases are appealed to the Appellate courts for that state.  Then to that state's supreme court.\n\nEach state is also part of a federal district with District courts that equate out to state's trial courts but deal with federal issues.  From there a case is appealed to the circuit court of appeals and from there the US supreme court.\n\nSome issues can cross over and sometimes there are cases where a state's decision can be questioned in federal court.  The US supreme court is it in terms of power, depending on the issue, whether on state law or federal, the state's supreme court is next (or the circuit court of appeal) on back down.  It gets murky in the middle.\n\nEach lower court has to abide by a higher court's decision.\nThat is as basic as it can be made, but it isn't completely accurate because of all the variables and things that can happen in the court process.
140916
federalism is the notion of a strong, centralized government. anti federalism is about states rights. since we are a federalist republic, that means what washington says takes precedence over what a state capital says. for example, some states have a medical marijuana law. the fed govt says marijuana is illegal in all cases. so its off to jail you go if the atf comes to your house. there may be some semblance of these doctrines to the parties.
124736
Marbury V. Madison  gave the Supreme Court the "right" for Constitutional review
799951
Federalist ->Sovereignty\nAnti-federalist ->Independence
1046036
The courts interpret law. They have no authority to hear matters that do not involve a current actual controversy between adverse parties. That's called "standing".\n\nCongress can pass any laws it wants, prospectively and proactively, within Constitutional limits. The courts can only interpret law and interpret the Constitution, and can only do so within the bounds of a particular case. Congress can also impeach a judge for failing to follow the rules.\n\nThe Executive appoints judges and justices. Thus, the president determines who gets on the bench. \n\nThose are the checks and balances. The executive appoints justices. Congress passes laws, which the courts can interpret. And Congress can impeach justices.
523017
First, be sure to break up the methodologies that are grouped into Originalists:\n\nOriginal Intent - The constitution should be interpreted by what the original authors meant.\n\nOriginal Meaning - Interpretation of the constitution should depend on the ordinary meaning of the text at the time it was drafted.\n\nTextualism - Original meaning constricted to its ordinary meaning and excludes intention of the legislature in passing the statute. It should be noted that textualism is concerned with the meaning of the overall text moreso than each individual word.\n\nConstitutions are documents which act as a frameworks for making laws. Laws should only be created by those designated as legislatures (Congress). It is up to the justices to interpret whether laws are constitutional when a challenge is raised. Under originalist views, if the law does not match the constitution, it should be rejected; if it matches it is fine. Those in favor of the 'living document' theory may refer to the constitution and past judicial decisions; but tend to favor personal and social opinion.\n\nThe biggest difference in the views comes when the constitution has nothing to say about the law in question. Originalist tend to reject the case since there is no constitutional backing. Those in favor of the 'living constitution' tend to interpret the law despite no constitutional backing.\n\nIf the constitution has nothing to say on the issue, then it is Congress's job to radify a new ammdment to the constitution. Originalist tend to honor this power, while 'liing document' theorists will attempt to interpret law without constitutional backing.\n\nOriginalist also tend to honor stare decisis, that prior decisions should be recognized as precidents. They may overturn prior decisions that don't have constitutional backing, however, they tend to honor the prior decisions moreso than 'living document' theorists.\n\nI think Antonin Scalia says it best in this attack on 'living document' theory:\n"[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things . . . [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable."
200614
Read the constitution it's explained
798307
When you break down the actual power that is instilled in each branch, the answer is fairly obvious.\n\nIt seems as if the the folks who have answered think that it is clearly the Judicial Branch, but they couldn't be more wrong.  If anything, the Judicial Branch has the least amount of authority in the federal government. The Supreme Court, in fact, has only implied power. The High Court acquired the ability to deem a law unconstitutional via one of their own rulings in 1803 (Marbury vs, Madison); nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it authorize the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court can only rule on cases brought before them by parties with a standing concern (i.e., individuals who are being directly and immediately affected by the law). If the case never reaches their courtroom, all the Supreme Court can do is sit idley by and watch from the sidelines. As far as the preconception that a Court ruling not being able to be overturned, that's not entirely accurate. The Congress, from time to time, can regulate and make exceptions to Supreme Court decisions, in particular where it pertains to the Court's appellate jurisdiction.\n\nYou would have to list the the Executive Branch as a pretender as well, considering that The Congress can supercede nearly every decision that the President can make. His veto powered is neutered by the fact that Congress can simply override and institute any law that the President strikes down, Presidential appointments are subject to approval by both Houses, and his job security is determined largley at their discretion.\n\nThe Legislative Branch, without a doubt, holds all the cards in this discussion.They write our laws, levy our taxes, declare our wars, confirm our Supreme Court Justices and Cabinet Officials, decide how the federal money is spent, amongst a plothera of other actionable powers. In addition to their great many capabilities, as it concerns this discussion, Congress has the authority to impeach and dismiss the occupants of the other 2 branches. This, above all else, makes the Legislative Branch, undoubtedly, the most powerful of the three.
841380
Entirely on the Constitution, but with the following in mind:\n\n(1) Most judges today ignore the 9th and 10th amendment. The powers not EXPLICITLY granted the federal goernment are reserved for the states and the people respectively. So, for example, since abortion or what are oddly called "reproductive rights" are not mentioned in the US Constitution (and mentioning the 14th amendment when ruling on Roe v.Wade was a stretch), I would say that the state has the right to make laws forbidding or allowing abortion. The federal government simply has no role, just like they do not have a role in states passing laws about the death penalty.\n(2) I would reject the "living constitution" bs many judges talk about. The living constitution theory of jurisprudence says it makes the constitution "flexible", in reality, it makes it very rigid by allowing judges to nullify the other two branches of the government. The constitution was designed to make the legislative branch, the one "closest to the people" the one which makes the laws. Then comes the president who ENFORCES those laws, and then comes the judiciary whose job is to INTREPRET those laws and to intrepret whether they are being enforced correctly. The judiciary isn't there to make new laws by simply talking about "living constitution" thwarting the will of the people.
795443
yup. \nThe Supreme Court IS the judicial branch.
913292
If this is for an essay and you have time for research then you use a treatise on constitutional law. There are also resources online.\n\nThe US Supreme Court rules on the federal constitution. State supreme courts (in NYS the Court of Appeals -- their supreme court is the lowest court of general jurisdiction, following English practice) rule on state constitutions. Here's an example where a state law on double jeopardy was stricter than the federal rule: http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/192P2d449.htm (in federal practice, two different sovereigns can prosecute the same offense, California law (only) is different).\n\nCiting a US Supreme Court case is easy. You go to http://www.lexisone.com (free registration required) or to http://justia.us (uses Google searching rules which may be more familiar to you) and you look for what you want -- key words, etc. Supreme Court cases are cited in the pattern "Smith v. Jones, 123 U.S. 456 (19XX)".\n\nMost Supreme Court constitutional law cases are famous: Roe v. Wade (abortion), Loving v. Viriginia (miscegenation), Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy), Miranda v. Arizona (right to warnings upon arrest), Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel). And so on.
861183
C\nA\nC\n\nDiscussion on number 2:\nA. There was no president as we view the office today, in fact, the original founders did not want a central government led by one person. They were afraid of tyranny so they deliberately stayed away from that system.\n\nB. The articles did not discuss a central court, but did establish full faith and credit between the states of the the judicial and court proceedings of the states.  However, Congress was the "court" to determine disputes between the states.  A Central court, or judicial branch came later with the US Constitution. \n\nC.  The regulation of interstate commerce by the Federal Government was a sticking point.  At this time, the 13 states were 13 separate republics.  There was an attempt to amend to amend the Articles to allow Congress power over interstate commerce, but the conception of the new Constitution coincided so the "former" articles never really addressed interstate commerce.\n\nD.  Again, no president as we view it today, but there was a president of the Congress.  That position did not make decisions, because most decisions needed the votes of 9 states and major decisions needed all 13.  Vetoing power and the executive branch came later, with the new US Constitution. \n\nBEST ANSWER for #2 is A.