The reflections and rantings of one obsessive history student
So its that magical time of year where I subject myself to way too much stress than my body knows how to handle. This is only made worse by my frequent caffeine abuse and horrible procrastination that also takes over at this time as well. (I’m talking about finals if you somehow forgot to read the title of this.) But anyway, now I am going to use my blog for the next week or so as just a place where I ramble about what’s on my final and dissect the study guide. Follow along if you care. Today I’m going to talk about EARLY AMERICAN LEGAL HISTORY (note: this subject is really really dry so you’ll probably only read this if you’re in my class, although I don’t think anyone in my lecture reads this.) So now its books cracked. Beyonce on. Let’s roll.
Anti-Federalists: Anti-Federalists opposed the creation of a stronger central government and favored the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution. This was because the Articles of Confederation gave more power to the states than the federal government. Some notable Anti-Federalists include Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, and Elbridge Gerry. They contested with the Federalists over issues of the Bill of Rights, Congressional representation and the size of the republic.
Judiciary Act of 1789: The Judiciary Act is arguably one of the most important laws passed by Congress in America’s history; it essentially established the U.S. federal court system. The Judiciary Act created one Supreme Court (with 6 justices and one Chief Justice) as well as Federal Circuit Courts presided over by a SCJ. There were also lower federal district courts made to oversee civil controversies. There are three important sections to the Judiciary Act
Section 13: This section allows for a writ of mandamus to be called upon federal officers. This section was challenged in the case of Marbury v. Madison.
Section 25: This section details how to enforce the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. It states that if a state court rejects any claim that someone has under their rights in the Constitution, that claim can be directly appealed to the Supreme Court. This was controversial because it negated states rights and undermined the power of state courts.
Arg! That’s all I have time for before I have to head off to my work. Bleh. Two terms down, 3587985642758934748584 million more to go. AAAAAAH. Kill me.