The Texas judiciary branch of its state government has not one but two Supreme Courts, the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Supreme Court of Texas. With the two separate Supreme Courts in its state government benefits are clearly displayed, but negative aspects are also clear here as well. I will describe what these two courts do for the state of Texas and I will tell of aspects I will leave be due to the benefits they provide but, I will also list changes to be made to fix the negative effects two Supreme Courts bring in this state. First, what is the Court of Criminal Appeals; according to Texas Politics (2017) “The Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest state court for appeals resulting from criminal cases. This court has statewide, …show more content…
As the court of last resort, the Supreme Court hears appeals of decisions in civil cases from lower courts. Its decisions are not subject to review by any other court.” Like the State Court of Criminal Appeals, it is composed of a chief justice and eight justices. But, a difference to note would be that this court has the legal authority to make legal determinations where other courts in Texas nave no jurisdiction under. In short, anything that does not fall under the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the lower courts is the responsibility of the Supreme Court of Texas. This court, like the Court of Criminal Appeals, makes the rules of practice and procedure governing trials and appeals in civil and juvenile cases, but the difference here is the cases involved (civil and juvenile). The Supreme court of Texas also holds the responsibility of (in my own words) setting the rules for the judicial branch. It, according to Texas Politics (2017), “establishes the rules of administration for the Texas judicial system, as well as the rules of operation of the state Office of Court Administration, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the State Bar of Texas, and other state agencies in the judicial branch of …show more content…
First off, I would leave the two courts, I believe that it helps being a separation of power in a way due to how it can separate cases for different sections of the judicial branch so that each case can be handled effectively (in my opinion). Second, I would modify discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. I would make it easier for cases to make it to the Court of Criminal Appeals by making discretionary review more of an overturn-able process. One can petition the discretionary review but I would like to make it to where fewer numbers are needed to make the case reach the Appeals court so that each case is handled thoroughly and effectively. And when it comes to the Supreme Court of Texas there is nothing I would change. A court that holds the power to delegate the rules of the judiciary branch is much needed to check the powers of the lower courts in the states. A final word on the law of the Texan State would be perfectly fine to keep in my own
Federalist no. 78 is persistent in its sort of justifications of the Constitutions vagueness. The letter claims that the judiciary branch is of the least danger of t...
The American way of living and thinking in Texas have changed tremendously over the past century. Political ideals are one thing that changes with time, and have transformed with the changing times well. The Texas constitution of 1876 was a landmark for the state and has been part of the state’s history since then. The Texas constitution of 1876 is still in use today but with all its harsh restrictions it is considered one of the most confusing of all the state constitutions. The constitution became one of the most prominent changes to Texas education system and politics.
The Constitution of the United States and the Texas Constitution share many similarities. They also have important differences due to different attitudes about what the role of government should be. It is important to know the limits of the state’s power as it can help us better understand our role as a Texas citizen.
among the nation's founders about the need for individual states to retain significant legislative authority and judicial autonomy separate from federal control. The reason why we have a dual-court system is, back then; new states joining the union were assured of limited federal intervention into local affairs. The state legislatures were free to create laws, and state court systems were needed to hear cases in which violations of those laws occurred. Today, however, state courts do not hear cases involving alleged violations of federal law, nor do federal courts involve themselves in deciding issues of state law unless there is a conflict between local or state statues and federal constitutional guarantees. When that happens, claimed violations of federal due process guarantees especially those found in the Bill of Rights.
In my analysis of the Texas Constitution I will assess the three branches of our State Government, the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch and finally the Judicial Branch. Our State Government resembles our National Government in various ways but also in very different ways which we will review in this essay. I will identify a handful of criticisms and problems associated with the provisions in each of these branches of our State Government and identify suggested reforms that many feel are needed.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
Texas can be attributed to the angle from which the defendant and justices approached the case. Instead of focusing solely on due process, from which the petitioners’ right to “engage in their conduct without intervention of the government” is derived, attention was also given to equal protection under the law. By criminalizing “sodomy” and thus homosexuality, Texas made it “more difficult for homosexuals to be treated in the same manner as everyone else,” thus legally sanctioning “discriminations against [homosexuals] in a variety of ways unrelated to the criminal law.” [footnote O’Connor, concur] The fear was that the law would set a precedence for discrimination in various fields of everyday life, ranging from family to employment and housing. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor points out in her concurrence, although the criminalization of sodomy (most broadly defined in American law as non-procreative sex) itself may not be unconstitutional, the way the law is implemented was, as only homosexual sodomy was banned (as opposed to heterosexual sodomy). Therefore, under the Equal Protection Clause, the law represents a “bare desire to harm the group.” [footnote ibid] Although Texas invoked the moral argument, as government had done in the past when regulating marriage and family and other forms of intimate relationships, O’Connor found such arguments to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, (judicial) government
Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America? Is a conglomeration of articles and short essays that attempts to expose the federal court’s relatively recent intrusion into our way of life by way of immoral legislative influence; made possible by presidents, congressmen, and apathetic voters who have relinquished their consent without contest. The author, Mark I. Sutherland and his associates believe that the Constitution’s system of checks and balances between the three branches of government has been usurped by an overreaching, immoral federal court system. The book explores how Judges have been influencing and shaping social and political policy for years by legislating from the judicial bench. In short, Americans have exchanged the rule of law for the rule by the judges. However, it does a poor job in addressing other major issues concerning the federal court system as a whole.
The hierarchal structure of the federal court system consists of the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals, Bankruptcy Appellate Panels, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, and Article I Courts (Hogan, 2010). The Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. Its primary role is to review decisions made by lower courts of appeals, where the case involves the federal law or Constitutional law. The Court of Appeals primary role is to hear cases involving challenges to the judgment made in District Courts, as well as appeals from federal administrative agencies decisions. Bankruptcy Appellate Panels primary role is to hear decisions made in bankruptcy court and determine if they follow the law. District Courts primary role is to determine all facts and evidence in a case while applying the law to decide who is right. Bankruptcy
The judges that are a part of this group has many different roles, some of which are to issues warrants, making a determination of probable cause in evidence, denying or granting bail to offenders, overseeing trials, making rulings on different motions and even overseeing hearings. The prosecuting attorney is the one who will represent that state in c...
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
Texas and Federal Constitutions contain the principles needed for a representative democratic government and both arose from different historical situations; for instance, the U.S. Constitution was made to replace the Articles of Confederation, a weak decentralized form of national government with no president or taxes, which made the government not powerful enough to start a war. The U.S. Constitution was made to improve these weaknesses by proposing a degree of centralization which increased government power. On the other hand, Texas Constitution was made to reverse or avoid the ideas of the U.S. Constitution. On one part, the U.S. Constitution wanted to empower government action whereas the Texas Constitution wanted to weaken government action. The Texas Constitution is more geared toward protecting people’s rights whereas the U.S. Constitution protects the nation’s interest. The Texas Constitution has been amended more than 300 times whereas the US Constitution includes the Bill of Rights and the subsequent
With that said after the Constitutional Convention was signed in 1787, President Washington felt it was necessary to institute the Judicial Courts, that are meant to exercise “judicial powers and to perform only judicial work” (Structure of the Federal Court System, 196). Since the country towards the end of the eighteenth century were under the Common Law rule, this step seemed sufficient to benefit the society. Before signing the Judiciary Act the founders wanted to go further than establishing a pyramid for the courts, they sent a draft for guidance. The few characteristics came from previous claims, one of the most uncomfortable features of the federal system were circuit riding in which the judges from the highest court to travel to different states to try cases. The circuit riding was basically a mirror match of the English courts, similarly the circuit courts were the major trial courts within the Federal Court System. Another issued faced by the system was the dealing of the single judge in the district courts. Through the time being the District Courts were “under limited jurisdiction over revenue, admiralty, and minor crimes” (Surrency, 7). Lastly, the distinction of between the Circuit Court and the Appellate Court, they both contained the same limited jurisdiction and could hear cases through writ of
The Texas Constitution continues to be in a constant state of development as there have been 673 amendments proposed since 1876 and 491 of which have been adopted. This ability for both the Texas Constitution and the citizens themselves to adapt to change shows the strength of each. The Constitution is stronger as a result of the people and the people continue to be stronger as a result of the Constitution. With the authority that was delegated by the Texas Constitution to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments the citizens of the State of Texas have been given a strong foundation upon which to build a tremendous