The U.S. Constitution - Lesson #14: Federal Court Structure & Jurisdiction

Today's lesson focuses in on Sections 1 and 2 of Article III of the Constitution.  This section focuses on the judicial branch, which includes the final court of appeals in the U.S., the Supreme Court of the United States (or SCOTUS if you like abbreviations).  So lets jump right in.

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.

Judicial power is the power to interpret the laws.  The power of interpretations falls on courts because they are unelected by the people and protected from both the Congress and the President so they can make the best decisions without any vindictive actions by either branch or the people because they ruled against them or the will of the majority.  This is the principle of judicial review, which is the power to declare the acts of the government as unconstitutional.  This means that the actions are either forbidden by the Constitution or they are not granted to the government in the Constitution.

The principle of judicial review is not specifically mentioned by name in the Constitution but it is implied in the other clauses of the document.  It was implied but not specifically debated at the Constitutional Convention, but it was anticipated before the ratification of the Constitution (Monk 90).  The case of Marbury v. Madison is where the idea of judicial review becomes true law.  But that is a story for another day.  (There is another   idea for my blog articles... reviewing cases that came before the Supreme Court.)

The first clause creates the Supreme Court of the United States.  It also provides the creation of other lower courts by the Congress of the United States (COTUS, another weird abbreviation).  This is a reiteration of the power granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 9.  Over the years the Congress has done just that.  As it stands right now, there are 94 district courts throughout the United States, with at least one per state.  There are also 13 district courts of appeal that are made up of several state districts, which all lead eventually to the Supreme Court.  Their is also a number of other specific courts that handle a specific jurisdiction, like tax court, regulatory agency courts.  Why we need this many courts is beyond me, but moving on?

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Within the Constitution their are no listed qualifications listed to be a federal judge within the United States, but it does list the term of office.  Judges serve for life and their compensation (salary) cannot be diminished while they sit in that office.  This is meant to protect the judges and make them as independent as possible from any other branch or the people.  The lifetime appointment protects them from the electorate, who may elect new judges that will do what they want.  The judges can make the decisions that need to be made free from the politics and partisanship of the day.  Their pay is set so that the Congress cannot punish them for declaring their acts unconstitutional.

Many of the people of the United States and the Anti-Federalists feared unelected judges because they could easily substitute their view of the law in place of that of the majority of Americans.  This is what has people all up in arms in California.  A federal judge struck down the Constitutional amendment declaring marriage as between one man and one woman, Proposition 8, that had been voted on and passed twice by the people.  The judge had thwarting the will of the majority.  This specific issue will be discussed more when the class gets to Article IV of the Constitution.  So save your comments on that topic for that time.  Hopefully in about two or three weeks.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This paragraph is all of Section 2 of Article III.  It outlines the areas where federal courts have jurisdiction (power) in the United States.  The strike outs were parts of the Constitution that were altered by the eleventh amendment, in response to the 1793 cases of Chisholm v. Georgia.  The class will not specifically address those parts today but will deal with them later.  Let us take some time to identify the major areas in which the federal courts have judicial jurisdiction.

"Cases... arising under this Constitution..."  This is in reference to the interpretation of the Constitution and violations of it.  Another lesson in the future will deal with the different methods by which the federal courts interpret the federal constitution.  One point to make though is that the Supreme Court and other federal courts do not pass judgment on hypothetical cases or give advisory opinions, telling government officials whether an act is constitutional or not.  In fact this idea was rejected by the Constitutional convention (Monk 98)

"The laws of the United States and Treaties made... under their authority."  It is obvious that it is the job of the federal courts to rule on the laws of the United States and its treaties.  Under the Articles of Confederation the states were responsible for enforcing federal laws.  In practice this meant that federal laws were largely unenforced.

"Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls"  These people are citizens of foreign countries, so it makes common sense (which is not that common, nowadays) that the federal courts have first crack at them.  The accusations against said people affects our relationships with foreign nations, which is the exclusive domain of the federal government and not the states.

"Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction"  This specifically refers to cases of crimes on the high seas which Congress can legislate in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10.  Since the bodies of water that surround the United States belong to no state, it stands to reason the federal courts have jurisdiction in these locations.  Generally this has also come to refers to cases about shared bodies of water in the United States.  For example, rivers that act as the boundary between two states (Mississippi River ), or lakes that touch more than one state (Lake Michigan or Lake Mead).

"To Controversies between to which the United State shall be a party; to Controversies between two or more states.. between citizens of different states."  This provision was the prevent any possibility of prejudice of the state courts against the another state, citizens of another state or the federal government.

Their are two more sections in this article of the Constitution but I will leave them for another day.  Are their any questions, comments or concerns from the class?  Class dismissed.

My Perfect School: Mission Statement

So I  was a little bored today when I was giving quizzes in my classes so I thought I would put down on paper the mission statement for the school I will build one of these days.  

It is the purpose and mission of (insert school name here), within the context of the Christian gospel (included if its a Lutheran school), to provide for our students, parents, and teachers an excellent educational environment, in which all members will be held individually accountable, to teach and train the community members in the knowledge and skills needed to be responsible citizens of their own community, and all member share a common responsibility in providing the best educational outcomes for all individual members of this community.

 There are several main parts of the mission statement I want to expound to you my readers.

to provide for our students, parents, and teachers an excellent educational environment,

An excellent educational environment is not just the job of the teachers and administrators of a school.  It is the job of all members of the school community.  Teachers need to maintain high expectations and appropriate activities to help students learn.  Students need to work hard and do their best to meet those expectations.  Parents need to support the teachers and look out for the best interest of their students.

all members will be held individually accountable, to teach and train the community members in the knowledge and skills needed to be responsible citizens of their own community

One of the key ideas behind my school is individual accountability on all levels.  Students must be accountable for themselves and their grades.  Parents need to be held accountable in their job to help their students to succeed.  Teachers also are accountable to make sure they are doing what is best for the student to learn.  We are all individually accountable for our actions, no matter how much students may work together to learn, or teacher collaborate to make good lessons, or parents work together to make the school better.  At the end of the day you are only judged by your merits and work.  No one else can be to blame for your lot in life than yourself and your own choices.  That is what I mean by individual accountability.

The other part of this phrasing refers to the knowledge and skills.  Schools are not just about teaching facts, but processes.  Math is not just 2+2=4, but how do we get to that.  English is not just about the essay but how to write it.  Government is not just about reading documents but being able to analyze and break them down and interpret them for today.  Good skills are just as vital in schools than the facts built around those skills.

all members share a common responsibility in providing the best educational outcomes for all individual members of this community.

The  other key phrase behind my school is common responsibility.  While we may be held individually accountable for our actions we are our brother's keeper.  This means it is the responsibility of the teacher to make sure grades are accurate and the students are aware of them.  Also to assist students to better themselves and their grades to as best as they can be.  It is the student's responsibility to know what their grade is and to seek out help when he/she might need.  It is the parent's responsibility to be involved in their students education and to seek out help for them when the cannot advocate it for themselves.  Also to make sure the school is teaching knowledge and skills that are relevant to our communities.  All members of the school share in the responsibility of the educational outcomes of the school.

The emphasis on community is to bring out the idea of teaching civic virtue.  The community could be the school, our town, state or even the nation as a whole.  We need to teach our kids that sometimes the good of the community goes above our individual wants, needs and rights.

within the context of the Christian gospel

Depending on the type of school I build, this may or may not be included in the mission statement.  I believe all life should be lived in the context of Christian Law and Gospel, but in a public charter school these ideas will probably be frowned upon.  Though their is nothing wrong with using the law on a student who has not been responsible.  Just as their is nothing wrong with showing some grace, with appropriate consequences to a student who shows true remorse at their actions.

Its taken awhile to formulate this into a real statement, but that is the mission of my school.  The largest emphasis is on the idea of individual accountability and common/shared responsibility.  Let me know what you think.  Have a nice day and weekend.

The Fatal Flaws and Failings of Collaborative Commonality in Assessments and Lessons Plans

I love it when I can use alteration in a title of something I am writing.  If that annoys, then I am sorry for the title today of this posting. 

Over my first five years as a teacher their has been a huge movement towards common assessments and/or lesson plans.  This is a method by which the teacher who teach the same subject mean and plan common lessons and tests for their students.  Though if I really understand the concept, its that everyone in the department collaborates on all the subjects.  Taking the combined wisdom of the entire department and making the best objectives, lessons and assessments.

At my last school I came in at the planning phase of common assessments.  At my current school they have been pushing this also for the last few years with somewhat mixed results.  And this year they want us to have common lesson plans and tests for almost everything.  I disagree with this practice, as you can probably tell by my title.

One argument made by one supervisor is that this will be help prevent teacher shopping by students to find the “easier” teacher.  This is to prevent one teacher from being to hard and another from being to easy.  This does not fix the problem though.  Their will always be teachers who are harder and easier.  Some teachers hold their students to different standards than others, both academically and behaviorally.  So unless can control all the other factors that make teacher’s unique you will not be successful.  Also, if a teacher is to “easy” isn’t the job of administration to adequately observe and evaluate said teachers so they can be brought up to the higher level?

Another argument is that we all need to be on the same page in case students have to transfer classes.  I agree with the theory that teachers of the same classes should be teaching the same concept at roughly the same time.  But in practice this rarely happens for multiple reasons.  The students may not have understood the concept so the teacher has to teach the material again to make sure students understand.  School events like assemblies, emergency drills or other school events may have prevented content from being taught that day in a specific class.  Any of these or others can cause a misalignment of content between the teachers teaching the same class. Also that different teacher’s can teach the same material and content using different methods.  Therefore the actual content can be understood differently by students in different classes, sometimes even with the same teacher.  Common assessments can only effectively work if all teachers teach the same content in exactly the same way.

Another reason behind this model is that its best for the students.  In the years that I have been working within this model the discussions I have been involved in show me that it is rarely about what is best for the student.  It is about what is best for the teachers.  What is easiest and makes the least amount of work for them?  Things like: "Lets just use the test from last year," or "what chapter in the book are we supposed to be teaching" lead the discussion.  This stifles creativity and critical analysis of the content we are teaching and how we are assessing that content.

The same is true for common lessons or objectives.  It usually comes down to a textbook, since that is the one thing that is common between all teachers.  Therefore it becomes the basis for all teaching and learning.  How much can I cover from this chapter?  Did you cover this section?  Its not about what you taught but what chapter in the book you have used.  So you tell me which was more important, the student’s learning or the teacher’s workload?

One flaw in the system of common lesson plans and assessments is that it discourages teacher and student creativity.  With common assessments teachers have to use the same test which they then all teach too and all the students have to take.  There is no allowance made for the student who does not test well.  There is no accommodation for multiple intelligence or differentiated instruction assessments.  Both of which administration say they want us to use within our classroom.  The teacher is not free to step away from the assigned content based on student interests or design tests that may be better for their students.  Common assessments tries to create cookie cutter students, when we are told over and over that we must treat them differently.

Another major flaw in the common assessment model is that it makes it easier for the students to cheat on these assessments.  This can be clearly seen in a teacher’s classroom where they teach the same class all day.  Students in those classes know when the test is and ask their friends to see the test or what was on it from a previous period.  What makes us think that it will not happen between classes of teachers who teach the same classes?

Common assessments and lesson plans are but a small aspect of a bigger problem within education.  The bigger issue in this discussion is the over regulation of a teacher’s practices by school administration, and the different levels of government.  This over regulation has come about because no one is willing to actually critically evaluate teachers.  Instead of critically analyzing the teaching methods and assessment methods of a teacher administration assign them the task of creating common assessments and lessons, assuming that they will create effective lesson plans and assessments.  

If you want more on evaluation of teachers check out the My Perfect School posting from January 22, 2010.  Also if you are reading this from Facebook please hop over to the original site (http://ajbulava.blogspot.com) and sign up as one of my followers.  Every time I post a new article it will email you. 

Any questions, comments, concerns?  Class dismissed.

Public Policy: Energy

The inspiration for this blog article is the postings of some of my friends on facebook to boycott oil companies by not buying oil on some date.  This has been attempted numerous times over the last ten years, mostly through email chain letters.  The fact of the matter is though is that it does absolutely nothing.  You can  never get enough people to make it worth something.  And what happens if I really need gas that day?  What we need is a common sense energy policy for the U.S. not boycotts.  Here is my energy policy for the United States for your enjoyment.

1.  End all subsidies, tax credits and deductions for energy sources.  If we want to know what it really costs to produce gasoline and other fuels for our cars we should end all subsidies.  I don't care if they go to big oil or big ethanol.  This is a good idea in general, but lets apply it to this sector of the economy.  This will make prices go up, but with those prices going up the market will then shift to more fuel efficient cars on their own.  Those who want to own gas guzzlers are free to do so and pay that much for fuel which is their right.

2.  Lower taxes on big oil.  People make a big deal about the billions of dollars of profits made by big oil companies.  The fact of the matter is that oil companies only make an eight cent profit of every dollar bought in gasoline.  The different levels of government make between twenty to thirty cents off of every dollars bought in gasoline.  So who really profits from big oil?  Big oil or big government.  This will make fuel more affordable to everyone because high oil prices affect the poorer classes more than the rich, since their resources are more limited.  Also, it will bring down the price of all other goods since gasoline is used to transport them to market.  It will be a boon to our economy.

3.  Utilize our own resources.  We have vast untapped resources of oil within the United States.  We need to use these now, instead of sending our money to people who use that money to fund our enemies (i.e. Saudi Arabia and al-qaeda).  The vast majority of these resources are in places people never go or see (i.e. ANWR).  We can utilize technology to convert coal to gasoline, just like Hitler did when he had an oil embargo on him.  We need to be self-sufficient.  We need to drill here and drill now.  Also, oil is used for more than just gasoline, so we will almost always need some source of that resource.

4.  Technology must catch up.  Electric cars are coming, but right now they suck!  No one wants to buy them.  Also, their is no infrastructure to support their widespread use.  This requires years of investment and research by all levels of economy for it to be implemented.  Electric trucks need enough power to pull heavy loads.  We need the technology for rapid charging of the batteries, because no one will wait hours to get their car charged on a cross country trip, when they can fill up with gas in 10 minutes.  We need mechanics trained in the maintenance of these vehicles.  We need the battery technology to store the power generated by solar, wind and other sources because solar only works when the sun is out.  All of these advances must not rely on the government for funding either.  To rely on government funding is to mask the true costs of these technologies.  The free market will decide which of these will succeed and fail.

Big Oil is a problem with the lobbyist they have in Congress, but lobbying is a problem in general in our government.  I am not against lobbying our government for legislation.  Special interests groups are the modern day factions that James Madison talked about in Federalists #10.  Lobbying regulations must be drawn up to prevent undue influence on our representatives.  But that is a another problem for another day.  Hey there's another topic for my blog.  Gonna have to do some research on that before I open my mouth on that one.

Any questions, comments, concerns.  Class dismissed!