15
15
0
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 8
John Jay: Family, Faith, & The Federalist Papers
Historian and author Walter Stahr discusses the life and lasting influence of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He discus...
Thank you, my friend SGT (Join to see) for reminding us that on September 24, 1789 Judiciary Act of 1789 is passed by Congress and signed by President George Washington. That act established the Supreme Court of the United States as a tribunal made up of six justices who were to serve on the court until death or retirement.
Yes indeed, President George Washington nominated John Jay as the first Chief Justice and he and the other justices were each confirmed.
The US Supreme Court justices supported the US Constitution. A regional court system was established among those territories/states which had already ratified the Constitution by this date in 1789.
Rest in peace John Jay.
Background on John Jay
American statesman, Patriot, diplomat, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States John Jay was born on December 12, 1745 He served as a "negotiator and signatory of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, second Governor of New York, and the first Chief Justice of the United States (1789–1795)."
Background from columbia.edu/cu/libraries/inside/dev/jay/biography.html
"A Brief Biography of John Jay
John Jay's long and eventful life, from 1745 to 1829, encompassed the movement for American independence and the creation of a new nation — both processes in which he played a full part. His achievements were many, varied and of key importance in the birth and early years of the fledgling nation. Although he did not initially favor separation from Britain, he was nonetheless among the American commissioners who negotiated the peace with Great Britain that secured independence for the former colonies. Serving the new republic he was Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation, a contributor to the Federalist, the first Chief Justice of the United States, negotiator of the 1794 "Jay Treaty" with Great Britain, and a two-term Governor of the State of New York. In his personal life, Jay embraced a wide range of social and cultural concerns.
His paternal grandfather, Augustus (1665-1751), established the Jay family's presence in America. Unable to remain in France when the rights of Protestants were abolished by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, Augustus eventually settled in New York where, with an advantageous marriage and a thriving mercantile business, he established a strong foundation for his descendants. His son Peter, like Augustus a merchant, had ten children with his wife Mary Van Cortlandt, seven of them surviving into adulthood. John was the sixth of these seven. Shortly after John's birth, his family moved from Manhattan to Rye in order to provide a more salubrious environment for the raising of John's elder siblings, two of whom had been struck by blindness following the smallpox epidemic of 1739 and two others of whom suffered from mental handicaps.
Educated in his early years by private tutors, Jay entered the newly-founded King's College, the future Columbia University, in the late summer of 1760. There, he underwent the conventional classical education, graduating in 1764, when he became a law clerk in the office of Benjamin Kissam. On admission to the bar in 1768 Jay established a legal practice with Robert R. Livingston, Jr., scion of the "Lower Manor" branch of the Livingston family, before operating his own law office from 1771. Among other tasks during these years, Jay served as clerk of the New York-New Jersey Boundary Commission.
In the spring of 1774, Jay's life took two momentous turns. In April he married Sarah Livingston (1756-1802), the daughter of New Jersey Governor William Livingston, thus gaining important connections to a politically powerful Colonial family. In May he was swept into New York politics, largely as a result of the worsening relations with Great Britain. New York conservatives, seeking to outmaneuver more radical responses to the Intolerable Acts, nominated a "committee of 50," including Jay, to arrange the election of delegates to a Continental Congress. Throughout the revolutionary struggle, Jay followed a course of moderation, separating himself clearly from loyalists but resisting what he considered the extremism of more radical politicians. Thus, in the months before Independence he favored exploring the possibilities of rapprochement fully, helping to draft the Olive Branch Petition as a delegate to the second Continental Congress. As a delegate to the New York Convention of 1776-77, Jay had a formative influence in shaping the new state's constitution. Jay remained an important actor at the state level, becoming the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court before moving to the national arena to assume the Presidency of Congress in late 1778.
The fall of 1779 found Jay selected for a mission to Spain, where he spent a frustrating three years seeking diplomatic recognition, financial support and a treaty of alliance and commerce. He was to spend the next four years abroad in his nation's service both as commissioner to Spain and then in Paris, where he was a member of the American delegation that negotiated the peace terms ending America's War of Independence with Britain. This process culminated with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in September 1783.
He returned to the United States in July, 1784 to discover that he had, in his absence, been elected Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In that role he was confronted by difficult issues stemming from violations of the Treaty of Paris by both countries — issues that he would later revisit in negotiations with Britain in 1794 and which would be addressed again in the resulting "Jay Treaty." Beyond his dealings with Great Britain, Jay succeeded in having the French accept a revised version of the Consular Convention that Franklin had earlier negotiated; he attempted to negotiate a treaty with Spain in which commercial benefits would have been exchanged for a renunciation of American access to the Mississippi for a number of years; and he endeavored, with limited resources, to secure the freedom of Americans captured and held for ransom in Algiers by so-called Barbary pirates. The frustrations he suffered as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a post he held until 1789, clearly impressed upon him the need to construct a government more powerful than that under the Articles of Confederation. Though not selected to attend the Philadelphia Convention, he was a leading proponent of the principles that the new Constitution embodied and played a critical role in its ratification.
In 1787 and 1788 Jay collaborated with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison on the Federalist, authoring essays numbers two, three, four, five and, following an illness, sixty-four, thus contributing to the political arguments and intellectual discourse that led to Constitution's ratification. Jay also played a key role in shepherding the Constitution through the New York State Ratification Convention in the face of vigorous opposition. In this battle Jay relied not only on skillful political maneuvering, he also produced a pamphlet, "An Address to the People of New York," that powerfully restated the Federalist case for the new Constitution.
In 1789, Washington appointed John Jay Chief Justice of the new Supreme Court. Though none too pleased with the rigors of riding circuit, Jay used his position to expound upon the inviolability of contracts whether in the supportive climate of New England or the hostile environment of Virginia. He was always a committed nationalist, and indeed the opinion he rendered in Chisholm v. Georgia provoked the adoption of the states rights-oriented Eleventh Amendment. Throughout his time on the bench, Jay was an outspoken presence in national politics, actively interceding, for example, in the Genet affair of 1793.
In April of 1794 Washington selected John Jay to negotiate a treaty with Great Britain aimed at resolving outstanding issues between the two nations. The resulting "Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation," commonly referred to as the "Jay Treaty," was extremely controversial. Critics charged that it failed to address British impressment of American sailors or provide compensation for those slaves that the British had taken with them during the Revolutionary war. The Treaty's unpopularity played a significant role in the development of an organized opposition to the Federalists.
On his return from London in 1795, Jay discovered that, in his absence, he had been elected the new Governor of New York, a position that he had sought three years earlier only to be frustrated, in controversial circumstances, by the incumbent, George Clinton. During his two terms as governor, Jay confronted issues ranging from Indian affairs, to the fortification of the city's harbor in advance of a suspected French attack, to the construction of a new state prison.
On his retirement from public life in 1801, Jay maintained a close interest in state and national affairs, evidenced in his correspondence with his sons, Peter Augustus, who was active in local Federalist political circles, and William, who, among other things, became an outspoken abolitionist. In his retirement Jay also pursued a number of intellectual and benevolent interests, becoming President of the American Bible Society, maintaining an interest in the anti-slavery movement and keeping up a correspondence with agricultural reformers about latest developments in that field.
Jay died on May 17, 1829, at the age of 83. His longevity enabled biographers and early historians of the founding era to draw directly upon his personal recollections of the people and events of the early years of the nation. In his later years, Jay's own correspondence with various members of the founding generation revealed a keen interest in ensuring an accurate appraisal of his own role in the momentous events of that time. "
John Jay: Family, Faith, & The Federalist Papers
"Historian and author Walter Stahr discusses the life and lasting influence of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He discusses John Jay’s co-authorship of several of the Federalist Papers and the pivotal role he played in the founding of our nation."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4S1ussrlks"
FYI COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Wayne Brandon Maj William W. "Bill" Price TSgt Joe C. SGT John " Mac " McConnell SP5 Mark Kuzinski Maj Marty Hogan SCPO Morris RamseyPO1 William "Chip" Nagel PO1 John Miller TSgt Joe C. Cpl Joshua Caldwell SPC Margaret Higgins LTC (Join to see) Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj Robert Thornton CPT Scott Sharon SSG William Jones SSG Donald H "Don" Bates
Yes indeed, President George Washington nominated John Jay as the first Chief Justice and he and the other justices were each confirmed.
The US Supreme Court justices supported the US Constitution. A regional court system was established among those territories/states which had already ratified the Constitution by this date in 1789.
Rest in peace John Jay.
Background on John Jay
American statesman, Patriot, diplomat, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States John Jay was born on December 12, 1745 He served as a "negotiator and signatory of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, second Governor of New York, and the first Chief Justice of the United States (1789–1795)."
Background from columbia.edu/cu/libraries/inside/dev/jay/biography.html
"A Brief Biography of John Jay
John Jay's long and eventful life, from 1745 to 1829, encompassed the movement for American independence and the creation of a new nation — both processes in which he played a full part. His achievements were many, varied and of key importance in the birth and early years of the fledgling nation. Although he did not initially favor separation from Britain, he was nonetheless among the American commissioners who negotiated the peace with Great Britain that secured independence for the former colonies. Serving the new republic he was Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation, a contributor to the Federalist, the first Chief Justice of the United States, negotiator of the 1794 "Jay Treaty" with Great Britain, and a two-term Governor of the State of New York. In his personal life, Jay embraced a wide range of social and cultural concerns.
His paternal grandfather, Augustus (1665-1751), established the Jay family's presence in America. Unable to remain in France when the rights of Protestants were abolished by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, Augustus eventually settled in New York where, with an advantageous marriage and a thriving mercantile business, he established a strong foundation for his descendants. His son Peter, like Augustus a merchant, had ten children with his wife Mary Van Cortlandt, seven of them surviving into adulthood. John was the sixth of these seven. Shortly after John's birth, his family moved from Manhattan to Rye in order to provide a more salubrious environment for the raising of John's elder siblings, two of whom had been struck by blindness following the smallpox epidemic of 1739 and two others of whom suffered from mental handicaps.
Educated in his early years by private tutors, Jay entered the newly-founded King's College, the future Columbia University, in the late summer of 1760. There, he underwent the conventional classical education, graduating in 1764, when he became a law clerk in the office of Benjamin Kissam. On admission to the bar in 1768 Jay established a legal practice with Robert R. Livingston, Jr., scion of the "Lower Manor" branch of the Livingston family, before operating his own law office from 1771. Among other tasks during these years, Jay served as clerk of the New York-New Jersey Boundary Commission.
In the spring of 1774, Jay's life took two momentous turns. In April he married Sarah Livingston (1756-1802), the daughter of New Jersey Governor William Livingston, thus gaining important connections to a politically powerful Colonial family. In May he was swept into New York politics, largely as a result of the worsening relations with Great Britain. New York conservatives, seeking to outmaneuver more radical responses to the Intolerable Acts, nominated a "committee of 50," including Jay, to arrange the election of delegates to a Continental Congress. Throughout the revolutionary struggle, Jay followed a course of moderation, separating himself clearly from loyalists but resisting what he considered the extremism of more radical politicians. Thus, in the months before Independence he favored exploring the possibilities of rapprochement fully, helping to draft the Olive Branch Petition as a delegate to the second Continental Congress. As a delegate to the New York Convention of 1776-77, Jay had a formative influence in shaping the new state's constitution. Jay remained an important actor at the state level, becoming the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court before moving to the national arena to assume the Presidency of Congress in late 1778.
The fall of 1779 found Jay selected for a mission to Spain, where he spent a frustrating three years seeking diplomatic recognition, financial support and a treaty of alliance and commerce. He was to spend the next four years abroad in his nation's service both as commissioner to Spain and then in Paris, where he was a member of the American delegation that negotiated the peace terms ending America's War of Independence with Britain. This process culminated with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in September 1783.
He returned to the United States in July, 1784 to discover that he had, in his absence, been elected Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In that role he was confronted by difficult issues stemming from violations of the Treaty of Paris by both countries — issues that he would later revisit in negotiations with Britain in 1794 and which would be addressed again in the resulting "Jay Treaty." Beyond his dealings with Great Britain, Jay succeeded in having the French accept a revised version of the Consular Convention that Franklin had earlier negotiated; he attempted to negotiate a treaty with Spain in which commercial benefits would have been exchanged for a renunciation of American access to the Mississippi for a number of years; and he endeavored, with limited resources, to secure the freedom of Americans captured and held for ransom in Algiers by so-called Barbary pirates. The frustrations he suffered as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a post he held until 1789, clearly impressed upon him the need to construct a government more powerful than that under the Articles of Confederation. Though not selected to attend the Philadelphia Convention, he was a leading proponent of the principles that the new Constitution embodied and played a critical role in its ratification.
In 1787 and 1788 Jay collaborated with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison on the Federalist, authoring essays numbers two, three, four, five and, following an illness, sixty-four, thus contributing to the political arguments and intellectual discourse that led to Constitution's ratification. Jay also played a key role in shepherding the Constitution through the New York State Ratification Convention in the face of vigorous opposition. In this battle Jay relied not only on skillful political maneuvering, he also produced a pamphlet, "An Address to the People of New York," that powerfully restated the Federalist case for the new Constitution.
In 1789, Washington appointed John Jay Chief Justice of the new Supreme Court. Though none too pleased with the rigors of riding circuit, Jay used his position to expound upon the inviolability of contracts whether in the supportive climate of New England or the hostile environment of Virginia. He was always a committed nationalist, and indeed the opinion he rendered in Chisholm v. Georgia provoked the adoption of the states rights-oriented Eleventh Amendment. Throughout his time on the bench, Jay was an outspoken presence in national politics, actively interceding, for example, in the Genet affair of 1793.
In April of 1794 Washington selected John Jay to negotiate a treaty with Great Britain aimed at resolving outstanding issues between the two nations. The resulting "Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation," commonly referred to as the "Jay Treaty," was extremely controversial. Critics charged that it failed to address British impressment of American sailors or provide compensation for those slaves that the British had taken with them during the Revolutionary war. The Treaty's unpopularity played a significant role in the development of an organized opposition to the Federalists.
On his return from London in 1795, Jay discovered that, in his absence, he had been elected the new Governor of New York, a position that he had sought three years earlier only to be frustrated, in controversial circumstances, by the incumbent, George Clinton. During his two terms as governor, Jay confronted issues ranging from Indian affairs, to the fortification of the city's harbor in advance of a suspected French attack, to the construction of a new state prison.
On his retirement from public life in 1801, Jay maintained a close interest in state and national affairs, evidenced in his correspondence with his sons, Peter Augustus, who was active in local Federalist political circles, and William, who, among other things, became an outspoken abolitionist. In his retirement Jay also pursued a number of intellectual and benevolent interests, becoming President of the American Bible Society, maintaining an interest in the anti-slavery movement and keeping up a correspondence with agricultural reformers about latest developments in that field.
Jay died on May 17, 1829, at the age of 83. His longevity enabled biographers and early historians of the founding era to draw directly upon his personal recollections of the people and events of the early years of the nation. In his later years, Jay's own correspondence with various members of the founding generation revealed a keen interest in ensuring an accurate appraisal of his own role in the momentous events of that time. "
John Jay: Family, Faith, & The Federalist Papers
"Historian and author Walter Stahr discusses the life and lasting influence of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He discusses John Jay’s co-authorship of several of the Federalist Papers and the pivotal role he played in the founding of our nation."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4S1ussrlks"
FYI COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Wayne Brandon Maj William W. "Bill" Price TSgt Joe C. SGT John " Mac " McConnell SP5 Mark Kuzinski Maj Marty Hogan SCPO Morris RamseyPO1 William "Chip" Nagel PO1 John Miller TSgt Joe C. Cpl Joshua Caldwell SPC Margaret Higgins LTC (Join to see) Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj Robert Thornton CPT Scott Sharon SSG William Jones SSG Donald H "Don" Bates
(13)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
The Judicary Act of 1789 in a Nutshell
As one of the first pieces of legislation under the United States Constitution, the Judiciary Act of 1789 created a branch of government that did not exist u...
The Judiciary Act of 1789 in a Nutshell
"As one of the first pieces of legislation under the United States Constitution, the Judiciary Act of 1789 created a branch of government that did not exist under the Articles of Confederation."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XT6tfvjBEg
Background from legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Judiciary+Act+of+1789
Judiciary Act of 1789
The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the lower federal courts. Under Article III, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In the Judiciary Act, the first Congress created federal trial courts and federal appeals courts to comply with this provision.
The first Congress engaged in considerable debate over the Judiciary Act. This was not surprising: the Constitutional Convention, which had ended a year and a half earlier, had revealed a deep division between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists promoted federal powers to protect against local bias and ensure federal supremacy. Anti-Federalists opposed a strong federal government and preferred to leave as much power as possible to the states. Although the debate over the Judiciary Act was not conducted entirely by Federalists and Anti-Federalists, these groups represented the opposing viewpoints.
Many concessions were made to Anti-Federalists in the Constitution. However, the ratification of the Constitution was a victory for Federalists because it created the potential for considerable federal powers. The bill for the Judiciary Act—the first bill to be considered in the first Congress—provided another opportunity for Anti-Federalists to present their arguments against strong federal powers.On April 7, 1789, the Senate ordered itself to create a committee to draft a bill organizing a federal judiciary. By the end of May, a committee led by Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, William Paterson, of New Jersey, and Caleb Strong, of Massachusetts, had devised a detailed, complex proposal. The committee envisioned a small, unintrusive federal judiciary with exacting jurisdictional requirements. This meant that a case would have to have certain characteristics before it could be heard by a federal court. Remembering criticisms made by the Anti-Federalists at the Constitutional Convention, the committee was careful to avoid giving the federal courts too much authority.
Despite the restrictions on jurisdiction, Anti-Federalists opposed the bill on the grounds that a federal judiciary in any form would deprive states of the right to exercise their own judicial powers. They argued that state courts were more than capable of deciding federal issues. Furthermore, the provision in Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution did not require Congress to create lower federal courts: it merely suggested that Congress do so.
The Anti-Federalists, led by Richard Henry Lee and William Grayson, both of Virginia, submitted amendments to limit the scope of the act. Samuel Livermore, a congressman from New Hampshire and an Anti-Federalist, moved the House to limit the jurisdiction of inferior federal courts to questions of admiralty. Lee did the same in the Senate. Another proposal consisted of creating no lower federal courts and expanding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. All the amendments were voted down. Senator William Maclay, of Pennsylvania, wrote in his diary, "I opposed this bill from the beginning…. The constitution is meant to swallow all the state constitutions, by degrees; and this to swallow, by degrees, all the State judiciaries" (Clinton 1986, 1531).
The Federalists, led by James Madison, of Virginia, insisted that a reasonable reading of Article III, Section 1, required Congress to establish lower federal courts. According to the Federalists, federal courts were necessary to ensure the supremacy of federal law. The supremacy of federal law over state law had, after all, been established in Article VI of the Constitution, which stated, in part, that "[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
The Federalists argued further that federal courts provided a venue that would be less susceptible to bias than that of state courts. The Federalists declared that several types of cases were appropriate only in federal court, including cases involving disputes between states; Aliens, or noncitizens; and crimes against the United States.
Under the proposed act, federal juries would comprise persons from all over the region, decreasing the potential for the jury bias that can exist in closely knit state courts. Also, federal judges would have no allegiance to any particular state because they would have judicial responsibility for several states at once, and thus would be less prone to bias than were state judges.
Eventually, the Federalists won enough support to pass the act. The House approved the bill submitted by the Senate without a recorded vote, and President George Washington signed the act into law on September 24, 1789.
The act established two sets of federal courts to operate below the U.S. Supreme Court. On one level, the act created thirteen federal districts. Each of these districts contained a federal trial court that had jurisdiction over minor criminal cases, admiralty and maritime cases, and civil actions on federal matters.
On another level, the act created three federal circuit courts. The circuit courts were given trial court jurisdiction over serious criminal cases and three categories of civil cases: cases where the United States was a plaintiff; cases where at least one of the parties was alien to the United States; and cases between parties of different states, or "diversity" cases, if the amount at issue exceeded $500. Circuit court jurisdiction over diversity cases was made concurrent with state court jurisdiction. This meant that a federal trial was not mandatory, and a plaintiff could sue in either a state or federal court. Also, if a defendant from another state was being sued in state court for more than $500, she or he could have the case moved to the federal circuit court.
Each of the circuit courts comprised a federal district court judge and two Supreme Court justices. This composition was a concession to Anti-Federalists. The general idea was that requiring Supreme Court Justices to sit on circuit courts, or "ride circuit," would force them to keep in touch with local concerns. Theoretically, this would prevent the development of the elite judicial aristocracy feared by the Anti-Federalists. The Judiciary Act also identified the precise jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court could hear appeals from the federal district and circuit courts. The Supreme Court could also hear appeals from state courts in cases involving federal treaties or statutes, state statutes that were repugnant to the federal Constitution or to federal laws or treaties, and the interpretation of any clause of the Constitution or of federal laws or treaties. In any case, the decision of a state court would be reviewed by the Supreme Court only if it was against federal interests.
The act gave the Supreme Court trial court jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states and between a state and citizens of another state. The Supreme Court was also given trial court jurisdiction to hear cases against ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls or their domestics, with the adjunct that district courts could also hear cases against consuls or vice consuls. (Consuls and vice consuls were government officers living in another country and responsible for the promotion of U.S. business in that country)."
FYI Capt Seid Waddell Capt Tom Brown 1stSgt Eugene Harless SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SFC William Farrell SSgt Robert Marx CPL Eric Escasio MSG Andrew White
LTC Bill Koski CW5 (Join to see) MSG Brad Sand SGM Steve Wettstein SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" PO1 William "Chip" Nagel PO1 John Miller PO3 Steven Sherrill TSgt Joe C. Cpl Joshua Caldwell SP5 Dave (Shotgun) Shockley
"As one of the first pieces of legislation under the United States Constitution, the Judiciary Act of 1789 created a branch of government that did not exist under the Articles of Confederation."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XT6tfvjBEg
Background from legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Judiciary+Act+of+1789
Judiciary Act of 1789
The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the lower federal courts. Under Article III, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In the Judiciary Act, the first Congress created federal trial courts and federal appeals courts to comply with this provision.
The first Congress engaged in considerable debate over the Judiciary Act. This was not surprising: the Constitutional Convention, which had ended a year and a half earlier, had revealed a deep division between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists promoted federal powers to protect against local bias and ensure federal supremacy. Anti-Federalists opposed a strong federal government and preferred to leave as much power as possible to the states. Although the debate over the Judiciary Act was not conducted entirely by Federalists and Anti-Federalists, these groups represented the opposing viewpoints.
Many concessions were made to Anti-Federalists in the Constitution. However, the ratification of the Constitution was a victory for Federalists because it created the potential for considerable federal powers. The bill for the Judiciary Act—the first bill to be considered in the first Congress—provided another opportunity for Anti-Federalists to present their arguments against strong federal powers.On April 7, 1789, the Senate ordered itself to create a committee to draft a bill organizing a federal judiciary. By the end of May, a committee led by Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, William Paterson, of New Jersey, and Caleb Strong, of Massachusetts, had devised a detailed, complex proposal. The committee envisioned a small, unintrusive federal judiciary with exacting jurisdictional requirements. This meant that a case would have to have certain characteristics before it could be heard by a federal court. Remembering criticisms made by the Anti-Federalists at the Constitutional Convention, the committee was careful to avoid giving the federal courts too much authority.
Despite the restrictions on jurisdiction, Anti-Federalists opposed the bill on the grounds that a federal judiciary in any form would deprive states of the right to exercise their own judicial powers. They argued that state courts were more than capable of deciding federal issues. Furthermore, the provision in Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution did not require Congress to create lower federal courts: it merely suggested that Congress do so.
The Anti-Federalists, led by Richard Henry Lee and William Grayson, both of Virginia, submitted amendments to limit the scope of the act. Samuel Livermore, a congressman from New Hampshire and an Anti-Federalist, moved the House to limit the jurisdiction of inferior federal courts to questions of admiralty. Lee did the same in the Senate. Another proposal consisted of creating no lower federal courts and expanding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. All the amendments were voted down. Senator William Maclay, of Pennsylvania, wrote in his diary, "I opposed this bill from the beginning…. The constitution is meant to swallow all the state constitutions, by degrees; and this to swallow, by degrees, all the State judiciaries" (Clinton 1986, 1531).
The Federalists, led by James Madison, of Virginia, insisted that a reasonable reading of Article III, Section 1, required Congress to establish lower federal courts. According to the Federalists, federal courts were necessary to ensure the supremacy of federal law. The supremacy of federal law over state law had, after all, been established in Article VI of the Constitution, which stated, in part, that "[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
The Federalists argued further that federal courts provided a venue that would be less susceptible to bias than that of state courts. The Federalists declared that several types of cases were appropriate only in federal court, including cases involving disputes between states; Aliens, or noncitizens; and crimes against the United States.
Under the proposed act, federal juries would comprise persons from all over the region, decreasing the potential for the jury bias that can exist in closely knit state courts. Also, federal judges would have no allegiance to any particular state because they would have judicial responsibility for several states at once, and thus would be less prone to bias than were state judges.
Eventually, the Federalists won enough support to pass the act. The House approved the bill submitted by the Senate without a recorded vote, and President George Washington signed the act into law on September 24, 1789.
The act established two sets of federal courts to operate below the U.S. Supreme Court. On one level, the act created thirteen federal districts. Each of these districts contained a federal trial court that had jurisdiction over minor criminal cases, admiralty and maritime cases, and civil actions on federal matters.
On another level, the act created three federal circuit courts. The circuit courts were given trial court jurisdiction over serious criminal cases and three categories of civil cases: cases where the United States was a plaintiff; cases where at least one of the parties was alien to the United States; and cases between parties of different states, or "diversity" cases, if the amount at issue exceeded $500. Circuit court jurisdiction over diversity cases was made concurrent with state court jurisdiction. This meant that a federal trial was not mandatory, and a plaintiff could sue in either a state or federal court. Also, if a defendant from another state was being sued in state court for more than $500, she or he could have the case moved to the federal circuit court.
Each of the circuit courts comprised a federal district court judge and two Supreme Court justices. This composition was a concession to Anti-Federalists. The general idea was that requiring Supreme Court Justices to sit on circuit courts, or "ride circuit," would force them to keep in touch with local concerns. Theoretically, this would prevent the development of the elite judicial aristocracy feared by the Anti-Federalists. The Judiciary Act also identified the precise jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court could hear appeals from the federal district and circuit courts. The Supreme Court could also hear appeals from state courts in cases involving federal treaties or statutes, state statutes that were repugnant to the federal Constitution or to federal laws or treaties, and the interpretation of any clause of the Constitution or of federal laws or treaties. In any case, the decision of a state court would be reviewed by the Supreme Court only if it was against federal interests.
The act gave the Supreme Court trial court jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states and between a state and citizens of another state. The Supreme Court was also given trial court jurisdiction to hear cases against ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls or their domestics, with the adjunct that district courts could also hear cases against consuls or vice consuls. (Consuls and vice consuls were government officers living in another country and responsible for the promotion of U.S. business in that country)."
FYI Capt Seid Waddell Capt Tom Brown 1stSgt Eugene Harless SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SFC William Farrell SSgt Robert Marx CPL Eric Escasio MSG Andrew White
LTC Bill Koski CW5 (Join to see) MSG Brad Sand SGM Steve Wettstein SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" PO1 William "Chip" Nagel PO1 John Miller PO3 Steven Sherrill TSgt Joe C. Cpl Joshua Caldwell SP5 Dave (Shotgun) Shockley
(4)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
FYI PO3 William Hetrick PO3 Lynn Spalding SPC Mark Huddleston SGT Rick Colburn CPL Dave Hoover SSgt Brian Brakke Sgt Albert Castro Sgt Vance Bonds LTC (Join to see)Sgt John H.1sg-dan-capriSGT Robert R. SGT Steve McFarlandCol Carl Whicker
SGT Mark AndersonSSG Michael NollSFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM
SFC Jack ChampionA1C Ian WilliamsCpl James R. " Jim" Gossett Jr
SGT Mark AndersonSSG Michael NollSFC David Reid, M.S, PHR, SHRM-CP, DTM
SFC Jack ChampionA1C Ian WilliamsCpl James R. " Jim" Gossett Jr
(3)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next