Anglais

The Federal Court Structure
In accordance with Article III, Section 3, of the US Constitution, The Supreme Court is flanked by « such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish ». These inferior courts are the districts courts, of original jurisdiction, and the courts of appeal, which are intermediate courts. All cases brought to these courts concern violations of federal laws or of the Constitution. There are 682 district judges in 94 districts courts, and 12 Courts of appeal (one in each of the 11 judicial circuits plus 1 in the District of Columbia). The Courts of appeal hear litigants who have lost in the district courts, and also hear appeal from federal administrative agencies. At the top of the pyramid sits the Supreme Court.

What are the differences between the Courts of appeal and the Supreme Court ?
The Courts of appeal were established by Congress in 1891 to alleviate the Supreme Court’s load. Today, those courts are appelate jurisdictions that can review lower-court proceedings, give legal interpretations and uphold or remand cases. They are thus paid attention, because they are influential in policy-making.
The Supreme Court is the last resort on all federal law questions and constitutional issues. Although it has original and appelate jurisdiction, most of the cases are appeals. The big majority of the cases are sent back to lower courts, because they do not present enough constitutionnal matters, or because the Court agrees with the lower courts. To reach the highest level, a writ of certiorari is required, and the other way to catch the Court’s attention is the appeal. The Supreme Court decisions are the most important judicial decisions ; they constitute an important source of law : common law.

Appointment of federal judges : a political choice
Federal judges are appointed for life by the President, and the Senate shall confirm them by a majority vote. They are subject to impeachment. Federal judges appointmtent is political : there is a part of subjectivity in the interpretation of the Constitution, and the President uses the judge’s philosophy to further his ideology during his mandate after his leaving. Since F.D. Rossevelt’s presidency, most of the judicial appointments have gone to judges sharing the same ideas as the president’s. Reagan and Bush appointees are not exceptions to the rule. Although Republicans traditionally advocate for a non-political role of the judges and for a neutral application of law, it is frequently heard that the Supreme Court is « conservative ».

Which definition can be given of a « conservative court » ?
It hinges on the definition of ‘conservative’, as D.E. Troy underlines it in his artlicle A difference of opinion, published in summer 1992 in the Policy Review : « if a conservative is defined as a non-liberal, non-activist judge who defers to the will of the majority... », the Supreme Court, for instance, all judges of which were appointed by Reagan and Bush, is conservative. But if « a conservative is a right-wing activist who reads conservatives or libertarian values », this same court is not conservative.
But in May 1992, after 93 nominations by Reagan and Bush – two Republican conservative Presidents –, federal courts were formed at 63% by conservative judges. Potentially, it is thus not only the Supreme Court that can be qualified of ‘conservative’, but the whole federal judicial system. Since the Supreme Court is the spearhead of the US judicial system and since its decisions are imperative, it has grounds for examining if this particular political trend leads the supreme jurisdiction, through its members and its decisions.

Are Reagan – Bush Supreme Court judges ‘conservative’ ?
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was appointed by President Reagan on June 17, 1986. His socio-educational background (he attended law schools of Stanford and Havard ; he is a member of the Emmanuel Lutheran Church) partly explains his decisions and his record : by dissenting in Roe v. Wade ruling in 1992, voting against Affirmative Action and favoring states’ rights, for instance, he takes up a strong Republican position.
Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman named to Court, by Reagan. She took oath of office on September 25, 1981. Formerly aligned with Rehnquist, she recently shifted toward center and took position by reasserting the constitutionnal right to abortion in a 1992 opinion. She opposes Affirmative Action, yet, and capital punishment, too. She is thus a very moderate conservative person, with a personal point of view on each issue.
Named by President Reagan in 1986, Antonin Scalia is one of the most conservative judges of the Supreme Court : he wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade decision in 1992, limit judicial power and law enforcement (separation of powers), opposes expansion of individual liberty and use of legislative history in statutory construction. He is a status quo and rigidity proponent.
Anthony M. Kennedy, former Stanford-Harvard student like most of his fellows, was appointed associate justice by President Reagan in 1987. He is considered as a conservative, despite a short shift toward center at the begining of the 1990ies. He opposes Affirmative Action, but he does not reject the right to abortion. Unlike S.D. O’Connor, Justice Kennedy is favourable to school prayer, i.e. not separating Religion and Citizenship.
David H. Souter was named by President Bush in 1990. Like O’Connor and Kennedy, he has a balanced point of view on the different issues, that means he is not a rigid conservative. He forms a centrist bloc with them on issues such as abortion and capital punishment. His liberal stands even brought him strong crittics from conservatives.
The last Reagan-Bush appointee was Justice Clarence Thomas. This 52-year old, black man succeded to T. Marshall, the first black man who sat in the Court. Thomas is said to be strongly conservative, and Scalia and he resemble each other in every respect (against abortion, for school prayer, for a limited role of federal courts...).
The senior of the Court, John Paul Stevens, was named by president Ford in 1975.He generally has liberal views, but also prides himself to take independent views in certain cases. The newest Justices are Ginsburg and Breyer, who were respectively named by President Clinton in 1993 and 1994. Naturally, they have a liberal, democratic point of view on the different issues, which are debated upon in the Supreme Court.
To conclude, the Supreme Court is made of three liberal justices, three moderate, centrist conservatives and three strong conservatives. The conservative majority is thus relative ; it hinges on the issue, and the group that decide wether or not a decision shall be adopted is the centrist group. The Court is conservative on criminal law and states power issues, but it is much more liberal as far as civil rights, capital punishment and public liberties are concerned

http://kenspirit2.free.fr/Anglais.doc

Voici l'adresse d'une page que j'ai trouvée

http://www.droitconstitutionnel.net/cours_dcUSA.htm

On y trouve un cours en Français sur le régime présidentiel appliqué aux Etats Unis. Ca peut aider pour comprendre. Je ne suis pas sûre qu'il y soit abordé tous les points qu'on a vu en cours (je ne l'ai, pour l'instant, lu qu'en diagonale...) ; mais apparemment, l'examen consiste en 2 ou 3 questions devant être traitées comme des "mini dissert"...(alors que je croyais que ce devait être un texte...). Donc ces infos peuvent être utiles!! Bon courage!!

MARBURY v. MADISON

Introduction
• Period of a very specific ideological context
• A conflict between factions/parties
• One of the Supreme Court's greatest decisions and a new real power defined

I. Adams v. Jefferson: the 1800 election.
• A specific ideological context: federalism v. antifederalism
• The defeat of outgoing President John Adams (a federalist)
• The victory of Thomas Jefferson (antifederalist and founder of the "democratic"-republican party)
• A long period of transition between November and March enabling the outgoing president to act

II. The Attempt at Maintaining Power over the Judiciary
• Political situation: the antifederalists taking over the executive power
• Appointments of pro-federalists in every possible judicial position (notably Chief Justice John Marshall) --> till the very last moment (midnight appointments)
• Marbury's appointment and Madison's reaction (he refused to have Marbury's commission delivered)

III. John Marshall and the Decision of the Court
• An uncomfortable Court caught between two factions
• A law that permitted the Court to order Madison to comply: the 1789 Judiciary Act (writ of mandamus)
• An unexpected but genial decision: declaring the act unconstitutional on the ground that it exceeded the authority of the Court (original jurisdiction in some cases only) and was therefore a violation of the Constitution as "supreme law of the land"
• First case of what is now known as judicial review: the power and duty of the Supreme Court to verify that all acts agree with the Constitution

Conclusion
• With this case the Supreme Court lost some of its theoretical power (mandamus), but gave itself a far more important one: Judicial Review
• Judicial Review was to be used several times after the Marbury case (with sometimes tragic consequences -- Dred Scott case, Homer Plessy case)
• Because of such power the legislative sometimes talks of "the imperial judiciary"

DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD

INTRODUCTION
• What was "Dred Scott v. Sandford" ? A Supreme Court decision (1857)
• Importance: ideological stand (black people, slavery, political balance)

I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
• From the Constitution to the Missouri Compromise
• Who was Dred Scott? (a slave in Missouri, a free man in Wisconsin?)
• The judicial process of the affair: the Court used its power of judicial review for the second time in history

II. THE OPINION OF THE COURT
• A very conservative court standing for the South (most justices were Southerners)
• 1st aspect: regarding Dred Scott and black people (not citizens => not entitled to the rights and privileges of US citizens, so "no standing in court") --> the Court justified itself by putting the responsibility on the Founding Fathers and the legislative power
• 2nd aspect: regarding the Missouri compromise and slavery
- slaves are owned => mere property
- compromise declared unconstitutional because it prevented a man from keeping his private property => violation of 5th amendment
- 2nd time judicial review was used in history
• Result: fragile balance between North and South broken

CONCLUSION
• A victory for the South
• The Dred Scott Decision: a spark that lit the powder keg of the Civil War?

sur cette page .. certaines questions posées (mais pas répondues) peuvent nous intéresser :
http://www.lettres.univ-nantes.fr/langues/RessourcesPedagogiques/CoursZbikowski/pages/part1.htm

un cour assez complet sur la cour suprème .. ji ai retrouvé des arrêts importants énoncés en cours !
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/cahiers/ccc5/elzoller.htm