Democracy in America — Volume 1Tocqueville, Alexis de
History
Democracy in America — Volume 1
Tocqueville, Alexis de
Democracy -- United States; United States -- Politics and government; United States -- Social conditions
e
[ In order to diminish the number of these suits, it was decided that
in a great many Federal causes the courts of the States should be
empowered to decide conjointly with those of the Union, the losing
party having then a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States. The Supreme Court of Virginia contested the right of the
Supreme Court of the United States to judge an appeal from its
decisions, but unsuccessfully. See “Kent’s Commentaries,” vol. i. p.
300, pp. 370 et seq.; Story’s “Commentaries,” p. 646; and “The Organic
Law of the United States,” vol. i. p. 35.]
This was a severe blow upon the independence of the States, which was
thus restricted not only by the laws, but by the interpretation of
them; by one limit which was known, and by another which was dubious;
by a rule which was certain, and a rule which was arbitrary. It is true
the Constitution had laid down the precise limits of the Federal
supremacy, but whenever this supremacy is contested by one of the
States, a Federal tribunal decides the question. Nevertheless, the
dangers with which the independence of the States was threatened by
this mode of proceeding are less serious than they appeared to be. We
shall see hereafter that in America the real strength of the country is
vested in the provincial far more than in the Federal Government. The
Federal judges are conscious of the relative weakness of the power in
whose name they act, and they are more inclined to abandon a right of
jurisdiction in cases where it is justly their own than to assert a
privilege to which they have no legal claim.
Different Cases Of Jurisdiction
The matter and the party are the first conditions of the Federal
jurisdiction—Suits in which ambassadors are engaged—Suits of the
Union—Of a separate State—By whom tried—Causes resulting from the laws
of the Union—Why judged by the Federal tribunals—Causes relating to the
performance of contracts tried by the Federal courts—Consequence of
this arrangement.
After having appointed the means of fixing the competency of the
Federal courts, the legislators of the Union defined the cases which
should come within their jurisdiction. It was established, on the one
hand, that certain parties must always be brought before the Federal
courts, without any regard to the special nature of the cause; and, on
the other, that certain causes must always be brought before the same
courts, without any regard to the quality of the parties in the suit.
These distinctions were therefore admitted to be the basis of the
Federal jurisdiction.
Ambassadors are the representatives of nations in a state of amity with
the Union, and whatever concerns these personages concerns in some
degree the whole Union. When an ambassador is a party in a suit, that
suit affects the welfare of the nation, and a Federal tribunal is
naturally called upon to decide it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account