Discuss the Policy Making Role of the Federal Judiciary in Shaping our Understanding of Federalism

Name

Institution

Discuss the Policy Making Role of the Federal Judiciary in Shaping our Understanding of Federalism

Introduction

Federalism, which is the basic principle of the United States Constitution, means that power is shared between the national and state levels of government (Slyke, 2009). Each of the fifty states within the United States has their own individual laws and powers while the federal government has some laws which are enforceable in all the states. “In a federal system, authority is divided, usually by a written constitution, between a central government and regional, or sub divisional governments” (Bardes, Shelley & Schmidt, 2008). Federalism involves protecting the powers of individual states in making laws that are specific to them as required depending on their capacity. State laws may be different across states but federal law is the same across all the states. An example is the legalization of gay marriage which has been legalized in some states while others have not. The Federal Judiciary consists of “the Supreme Court, 91 bankruptcy courts, 94 district courts, 12 geographic circuit courts of appeals, the Court of International Trade, the Court of Appeal for the federal circuit and the Court of Federal Claims” (Diane Publishing Company, 2004). They are the tools of justice within the federal government. Their main responsibility is to ensure the rights of individual citizens are upheld even when other levels of government do not do so. The President has the mandate to nominate judges for the federal judiciary. However, the senate has to vote before the nominees are appointed into office. The Supreme Court, for the states, is the ultimate court of appeal and mainly influences the decision through interpreting the law used to make the decision. Federal courts decide cases that involve the United States government or its officials, “the United States Constitution or federal laws, or hullabaloo amid states or between the United States and foreign governments” (Hogan, 2010). They also decide cases where there are disputes over judicial jurisdiction between two states among other cases. The Judicial Conference of the United States, established by statute in 1922, is the federal courts’ national policy-making body, and it speaks for the judicial branch as a whole (Hogan, 2010). The federal judiciary makes policies that delineate the different mandates of the federal, state and local governments. This is through the decisions and judgments passed for cases they preside over during cases.

Policy Making Role of the Federal Judiciary in Shaping our Understanding of Federalism

The decisions of the Federal judiciary when listening to various cases under its jurisdiction are part of it policy making roles. The federal judiciary itself is responsible for issuing the rules of procedure and evidence that govern all federal court proceedings (Hogan, 2010). These allow them to carry out their duties within these procedures so as to ensure they are as fair and true as possible. The decisions made provide guidelines on what to do when faced with the specific issue dealt with or similar ones. These assist in shaping ones understanding of federalism in various ways. This includes determining which cases are within the federal, state and local jurisdiction, interpreting the application of the law, guiding the policy making process of the state government by providing checks and balances especially on laws that do not conform with the constitution and settling disputes between states. The decisions made in these cases are aimed at solving the issue and providing guidelines as well as enforcing the capacity of the relevant levels of government to carry out their judicial responsibilities. Most of the laws made in the states are replicated in the federal government at a higher echelon. An illustration is the policies on budgets. The federal, state and local governments all have budget related policies to deal with their income and expenditure. However, they are at different scale with the federal having a large scale budget for the whole country while the state deals with the state budget and the local government in the local budget. Their policies are all intertwined with the scales of operation differing. In some realms, the federal government is supreme and the states may not interfere; in others, the states are supreme and the federal government has little or no power to interfere; in still others, the federal government and the states share concurrent powers over the same spheres of activity (Zelden, 2007). This may sometimes cause conflicts and hence the need to have a judiciary to determine where the power lies.

The federal judiciary is responsible for judicial reviews on laws made by different states to determine whether they are constitutional or not. This power enables the judiciary branch to act as a check on the other two branches of government, in line with the system of checks and balances established by the US constitution (Bardes, Shelley & Schmidt, 2008). Applying checks and balances to state laws enables them to make policies that are in accordance to the constitution. Judiciary reviews are conducted by federal court judges who observe cases at lower courts within the states and local governments in order to determine whether they are operating within the requirements of the constitution. The federal and state courts are required to extend “full faith and credit” to each other’s respective judgments (Hogan, 2010). The federal judiciary allows the state government to change and formulate their individual laws as long as they are in accordance with the constitution. The federal government is responsible for laws that affect the country as a whole while the state laws only affect the specific states. However, it is mandatory for all the policies made to be in line with the constitution as it is the ultimate law in the country.

Federal law supersedes state and local laws and hence any decision made by the federal judiciary has to be followed. This means that where a state law is challenged, the federal law on the same issue is followed as opposed to the state one. The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the US has the greatest implications on the states based on the decision being made and area affected. The area of jurisdiction determines the level of control the federal court has. An example is when the Supreme Court held that Arkansas state constitutional amendment limiting the terms of congresspersons was unconstitutional, laws establishing term limits in twenty three other states were also invalidated (Bardes, Shelley & Schmidt, 2008). Once a decision has been made in court with regard to a law; all the states affected by a similar amendment face the same consequence. This also shows the hierarchy of power in federalism with the Federal judiciary being at the top, followed by the State and final the local government. This is important in federalism especially in determining where the powers of each level of government start and end. The different mandates should be clear in each level of government to ensure that policies are made by the correct level in order to be enforceable.

The federal judiciary also makes policies through interpreting laws and providing guidelines. When there is a dispute in the interpretation of federal laws or the constitution, the federal judiciary is responsible for interpreting it and setting a precedent through the decision made. This provides guidelines for other judiciary levels in judging cases of similar or related issues. In doing this, the lower courts are empowered to deal with cases of the same caliber. This enables them carry out their individual judicial activities and enforce their laws without needing the federal government. In this case, the federal judiciary plays an enabling role in the policy making process. In addition, it is also restricted on the kind of cases it can deal with so as to ensure states’ autonomy is not interfered with. Cases listened to by the federal judiciary include cases involving the United States government or its officials, the United States Constitution or federal laws, or hullabaloo amid states or between the United States and other governments (Hogan, 2010). The state government, on the other hand, deals with most issues within the state level such as divorce cases. The policies and laws addressed by the federal government are related to the constitution and the US relations with other countries as well as solving arising conflicts between states. This promotes the understanding of federalism as it clearly shows the issues that are dealt with by the federal government and the judiciary. The decisions made by the federal court on hearing the cases serve as guidelines for the actions of the federal government.

Another policy making role of the federal judiciary is settling disputes between two or more states that do not agree. The decisions made in these cases are used as policies to guide the involved states. The federal judiciary is charged with determining how the involved states will solve their issue. The decision is then included in the laws and policies made related to the issue. While the decision has an influence in the policies that are made, the states will, however, be allowed to enforce their power in implementing the policies made. Federalism in this case is seen in the enforcement of the states in order to effectively implement them and carry out their duties. Once a dispute is resolved, the two states are clear about their scope of jurisdiction and the extent of their power.

Conclusion

The Federal judiciary shapes our understanding of federalism by making policies that encourage and empower the state and local governments in enforcing their policies. This is done through the use of the decisions made in the judicial courts to formulate policies within the state government. Such decisions include those made when interpreting the law to determine the best way of implementing it. It is normally brought about by cases where the lower courts are unable to determine which way a case should be handled. They also solve disputes between two states over jurisdiction and conflicts thereby empowering them to implement the laws into their policies. In addition, the federal judiciary also reviews the state laws to ensure they are within the constitutional requirement. Lack of consideration for the constitution is not allowed as it is the supreme law in the country and may lead to the law or policy being scrapped off or amended. The federal, state and local government follows a hierarchical system where the federal government is at the top. This shows the kind of mandates each level has. Federal laws supersede the state laws and are upheld in case of a conflict between the two. However, there are instances where the federal and state governments work together concurrently in order to achieve them according to the constitution. Decisions made in the above case influence the policies made at state level and enforce their power to implement them. These enables one understand federalism as they show what issues the state is able to handle on its one and which should be left for the federal government. It outlines the power of each level by providing guidelines on how they can implement them in their policies. This is important as it separates the powers of the different levels and their mandate. The federal government oversees laws across the US and its operations are more large scale level compared to the state level. The state level oversees laws across the state and has a less operation scale. The federal government often steps in once the state level needs help by providing needed personnel and other resources. It also provides guidelines for important sectors such as health care and education, which should be followed by the states in enforcement.

References

Bardes, B.A., Shelley, M.C. & Schmidt, S.W., (2008). American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials. Belmont, CA: Cengage Higher Education.

Diane Publishing Company. (2004). Federal Judiciary: Reviews of Court Operations Should Adhere To Oversight Standards. Darby, PA: Diane Publishing Company.

Hogan, T.F. (2010). The Federal Court System in the United States: An Introduction for Judges and Judicial Administrators in Other Countries. Washington, D.C.: Administrative Office of the U.S Courts.

Slyke, C.V. (2009). Kaplan GED 2009-2010 Edition: Complete Self-study Guide for the GED Tests. New York: Kaplan Publishing.

Zelden, C.L. (2007). The Judicial Branch of Federal Government: People, Process and Politics. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO Inc.