What is the legal basis for the federal court system?
372065
The constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to create lower courts.
796136
The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and legislation. The basic principle is that the Supreme Court tries to get to the intent of legislation, and determines if the intent conflicts with the intent of the Constitution. \n\nIn general, all lower courts do the same thing; they try to determine an appropriate judgement by using the intent of law makers and the prior decisions of the Supreme Court.\n\nThe other branches of government cannot directly interfere with the workings of the court. However, when something has been left vague in previous law and has been interpretted by the courts, the legislature can go back and amend or make new law to make their intent clearer. Often the courts will include advice in their judgement to the legislature to do just that; they'll send an issue back to them to clarify.
871260
The US is a federation, so there are 3 branches of gov't for each state and 3 levels for the federal (united) gov't in Washington DC.  The judicial branch is the Courts.  There are 3 levels of courts in every state and 3 levels for the federal courts.  The trial court, the appeals court, and the court of last resort.  Next, is the legislative branch.  Every state and the federal gov't all have 2 chambers, the house and the senate.  Next is the executive.  They do the administration and at the state levels they are called the "Governor," and his appointees, and at the federal level it is called the "President," and his appointees.  Good luck, Shay!
727065
Well, your question is unclear, but I am assuming you are asking why we have "dual courts" in the sense that there are federal courts and state courts. \n\nThe short answer is federalism - the federal government is one of limited, typically enumerated powers, while the states are governments of more traditional plenary powers. The jurisdiction of the courts are also different. Federal jurisdiction for the most part arises from two statutes, 28 USC 1331 and 28 USC 1332. One provides for "diversity jurisdiction" (most commonly when two citizens from different states sue eachother). The other provides for "federal question" jurisdiction, in that the issue in the suit arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States (as opposed to the various states).\n\nState courts generally are of general jurisdiction and can, for the most part, hear any case (although this is subject to removal to federal court if authorized by statute or exclusive federal jurisdiction is provided for in the underlying statute providing the cause of action.)\n\nThis of course is a very abbreviated and overly simplified discussion of a complex issue of jurisdiction and federalism. Hope it helps.
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.
609749
Although imaginative, your idea would violate the "cases and controversies" clause in Article 3 of the Constitution.  That clause has been interpreted to mean only actual cases in which a person who has really been affected or is about to be affected brings an actual controversy before the courts.  US federal courts can not try to imagine how a law or Presidential act is going to play out and just decide it's unconstitutional.  Somebody always has to file an actual lawsuit or be charged with an actual crime before the courts have any power to do anything in our system -- which sorta deflates the nonsense we hear about activist judges in this country.\n\nIn many other countries, including many European democracies, the system works differently.  Those countries often have "constitutional courts" that basically check laws as they're being made to decide whether they are going to be ok or not.  If not, they are often returned to parliament to be re-worked.  Of course, courts in general there work very, very differently from what we're used to in the US, and they are not always an independent branch like they are here.  That's why it makes sense to limit the power of our federal courts by making them more passive, removing their ability to have a voice on subjects where no real trouble has yet arisen.\n\nAlso, the Constitution's second Article gives the President a lot of trust and authority precisely so our country would have somebody in a position to handle emergencies quickly and without long debates.  The President has a duty to keep secrets, even from the courts unless -- yup, unless an actual case or controversy comes from a valid lawsuit or a criminal charge.  Making the President keep members of the judicial branch around with him to hear all his secrets would violate the separation of powers that is so important to the structure of our republic.\n\nIn any case, we do have judges who sit in special federal courts, where the judges have top security clearance and are supposed to review the President's activities, grant or deny him search warrants, and that sort of thing.  Sadly, this President has decided that, despite what the laws say, he can ignore that court and its judges.  I see little reason at this point to trust that he would cooperate with judges or obey their rulings in your plan any more than he already has in reality.
433201
A warrant issued by a federal court or jurisdiction (as opposed to a state or local court).
892987
Each state court system that uses an online system has its own system - there is no one, central system. \n\nThe federal system is called PACER. http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ \nHowever, each U.S. District Court has its own PACER system... so you have to go to the correct district to obtain information.
136158
It is where the central(federal) government and the states share power. The three levels, are the federal government
196748
Your question doesn't make sense?  what's a federal state system....a contradiction in terms.
1027573
There is actually, ideologically one judiciary. But there are 50 courts. One for each state. \n\nIn each state there are district courts and there are circuit courts. \n\nDistrict courts basically cover criminal cases for states and commonwealths. Most of the time criminal cases are tried in district court if they are murder, larceny, burglary, rape, violence, and drug stuff.  But not always. In some states they include things like discrimination, jurisdictional disputes between state and local governments and a plethora of other serious things. \n\nCircuit Courts basically hear family law, civil stuff like money issues, divorces, lawsuits against neighbors, tort claims and civil stuff that isn't criminal. But each state has the authority to paint its own definition of the courts by legislation. \n\nAppellate courts are for appeals after one court or another has ruled. Like if Ford Motor Company gets into a fight with Firestone Tires and the courts award one side a billion dollars in damages and then the other side goes to court and appeals the money settlement arguing that the side that won a billion dollars got an excessive fine imposed and that it is unconstitutional to fine excessively. \n\nThe U.S. Supreme Court only hears Constitutional issues on matters that come from lower courts, appellate courts and district courts. If it isn't a Constitutional question, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't hear it. \n\nAlmost all courts in this country are State Courts. Unless the crime is federal, like bank robbery or drug trafficking where you get picked up by the DEA or if you firebomb a bunch of log trucks in a Forest Service forest, you will not end up in Federal Court. The federal courts only hear federal crimes. \n\nMost of the crimes in this country are the jurisdiction of the state courts. They are the courts for issues, which, under MOST circumstances, are petty. Like juvenile courts where a kid shoplifts a pack of cigarettes from a convenience store. Or where a dog jumps the fence and goes into the neighbors yard and bites the homeowner next door. Serious, but not on the same level as murder or raping a 10 year old girl. And then there is traffic court. Traffic courts are like ticket courts where you get a fine for driving over the speed limit, parking in the mayor's spot at the mall or running over a fire hydrant when you are coming home from work. \n\nGranted there are severe issues heard in these courts, too. Like a 15 year old who gets tried in juvenile court for murdering his mother, or dog court where a guy doesn't have a dog, but he has a tiger in his back yard and the neighbors are scared shitless. And there is always the drunk driver who gets into an 18 wheeler full of produce and hauls off down an Indiana highway and runs into 3 school busses full of children on their way home from Vacation Bible School whose case gets heard in traffic court, first, at least. \n\nSo the courts all have different jurisdictions and they all handle basically similar but not all the same types of cases. It depends on your state which jurisdictions those courts have in common with other states.
216561
It was Federal District court.  You're confusing the NY state court system with the US Federal Court system. There's no such thing as superior court in the Federal system.  For the Federal level it goes \nDistrict Court->Court of Appeals->US Supreme Court.
1084363
A little note on the particulars of lawmaking and judgments (which are NOT the same).  The creation of laws is done by the legislative branch (ie. Congress or Administrative Agencies - whose legitimacy can be debated as well).  The interpretation of laws is done by the Judicial Branch (ie. judges, ultimately the Supreme Court).  \n\nThere are several types of law in the United States, which is followed from the ancestors from England...Common Law, Natural Law, positive Law, Administrative Law, Ordinances, State Law,  and Constitutional Law.  Most people have no idea how these all fit together.  BASICALLY....\n\nWhen an entity (usually a person) appeals a case to the United States Supreme Court, and it is accepted for review by the Court, the parties are arguing points of law, not whether something happened or not.  In reviewing a case, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are supposed to use above all else for their considerations the United States Constitution - the SUPREME law of this land.  (This is how if something is found unconstitutional, the case is over becuase it is by nature illegal.)  \n\nThe Constitution however is viewed through the lenses of human eyes that have had experiences and posses hidden motives.  These are what move a Justice to decide one or another.  \n\n(In regards to a precedent....this applies to Common Law only, which is the lowest forms of law in this country.  All that a precedent is, is a way another Justice at some level decided in a particular region.  That is, if an Alabama judge decided a case for a certain reason...other Alabama judges would be expected to find the same decision in similar cases.  This precedent would not at all apply to courts in Colorado or Maine or...any other state.  Precedents are most similar to ordinances - "don't do that because we have realized it causes harm to many.")
822944
Assuming you're talking about the United States legal system, it is not two-tiered, unless you're considering State/Federal as the two tiers. Within each system, state and federal, there are at least two and sometimes many more tiers.
80588
Try FindLaw.com. It covers U.S. Constitution, U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulation, U.S. Supremem Court decisions, and just a ton of other stuff. There is also a breakdown on state codes and regulation.
1159896
Article 3: establishes the last of the three branches of government, the Judiciary. Section 1 establishes the Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States. It also sets the terms of judges, of both the Supreme Court and lower courts: that they serve as long as they are on "good behavior," which usually means for life (no Justice and only a few judges have ever been impeached). It also requires that judges shall be paid.\n\nSection 2 sets the kinds of cases that may be heard by the federal judiciary, which cases the Supreme Court may hear first (called original jurisdiction), and that all other cases heard by the Supreme Court are by appeal. It also guarantees trial by jury in criminal court.\n\nSection 3 defines, without any question, what the crime of treason is.
643761
District courts are federal trial courts (may include juries, etc.)  Federal appeals courts are the Circuit courts (there are 13).  They review decisions made by District courts, but they cannot re-try facts (only review the application of the law).  The number of judges varies depending on Circuit, but normally only 3 will decide a case (for very important cases, there may be more, or all of them).  The U.S. Supreme Court (9 justices) reviews decisions of the Circuit courts.  Normally they will review rulings that are inconsistent among circuit courts of appeals.