Communications 300 Lesson 1

State court systems operate independently of the federal system and of other state systems, under the authority of state constitutions and laws. This means that state courts have their own jurisdiction and decision-making power, separate from the federal court system. They are responsible for interpreting and applying state laws, resolving disputes within the state, and ensuring justice at the state level. This independence allows state courts to address local issues and tailor their decisions to the specific needs and circumstances of their state.

Federal regulatory agencies like the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) are empowered by the government to create and enforce rules and regulations within their respective jurisdictions. These rules are legally binding and have the force of law. These agencies are responsible for overseeing and regulating various industries and sectors to ensure compliance and protect the interests of consumers and the public.

The U.S. Constitution is the correct answer because it is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It establishes the framework of the federal government and outlines the rights and responsibilities of the citizens. The Constitution is the ultimate legal authority and serves as a basis for all laws and decisions made in the country. The U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice, and Congress are all important components of the government, but they derive their authority from the Constitution itself.

Every person who loses in a trial court has the right to at least one appeal. This means that regardless of the outcome of the trial, individuals have the opportunity to have their case reviewed by a higher court. While some states may allow for multiple appeals, the minimum guarantee is that everyone is entitled to at least one appeal. This ensures that individuals have the chance to challenge the decision made in the trial court and seek a different outcome.

The correct answer is "Judicial review is power of courts to deem laws unconstitutional." This statement is correct according to the Hopkins text. Judicial review refers to the power of the courts to review and potentially invalidate laws or actions that are deemed to be unconstitutional. This power allows the judicial branch to act as a check on the legislative and executive branches of government.

Constitutional law is made by courts when they decide cases by interpreting the federal or a state constitution. This means that courts have the authority to interpret and apply the provisions of the constitution to specific cases, thereby shaping the development and understanding of constitutional law. Legislative bodies enact laws, executive agencies issue executive orders, and administrative agencies issue administrative rules, but it is ultimately the courts that have the power to interpret and make decisions based on constitutional principles.

Courts of original jurisdiction are referred to as trial courts because they are the initial courts where cases are heard and decided. These courts have the authority to hear evidence, examine witnesses, and make judgments based on the facts and laws presented. They are the first level of the judicial system where legal disputes are resolved and where the parties present their case for the first time. Unlike appellate courts, which review decisions made by lower courts, trial courts are responsible for conducting trials and making initial determinations. Therefore, the term "trial courts" accurately describes courts of original jurisdiction.

The statement is false because there is not necessarily a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in each state. The United States is divided into 13 judicial circuits, and each circuit includes multiple states. Some states may have more than one circuit court, while others may not have any. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there is at least one U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in each state.

Law and ethics both promote social harmony because they provide guidelines and standards for individuals and society to follow. Law sets the legal framework and regulations that govern behavior, while ethics sets moral principles and values that guide individuals in making right decisions. When both law and ethics are upheld, they contribute to a harmonious and orderly society where people are treated fairly and justly.

The correct answer states that the law may allow behavior that would not be allowed by personal or professional ethics. This means that there may be actions that are legally permissible but are considered unethical by personal or professional standards. This acknowledges that the law and ethics can sometimes have different standards and that the law does not always align with personal or professional codes of conduct.

not-available-via-ai

The correct answer is "review the application of the law by the lower court." Appeals courts are responsible for reviewing the decisions made by lower courts to ensure that the law was applied correctly. They do not hear new testimony or interview the petitioner, and their role is not to decide whether a case should be sent to the Supreme Court. Their primary function is to review the lower court's application of the law and determine if any errors were made.

According to the Hopkins text, all federal judges, including the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, cannot be removed by the President.

False. When the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to accept a case (denies certiorari), it is not required to provide an explanation for its decision. The Court has the discretion to choose which cases it wants to hear, and it typically does not provide explanations for denying certiorari. This allows the Court to prioritize certain cases and manage its workload effectively.

A non-criminal wrong committed by one person against another is called a tort. A tort refers to a civil wrongdoing that causes harm or injury to another person, their property, or their reputation. Unlike criminal offenses, torts are addressed through civil lawsuits where the victim seeks compensation for the damages they have suffered. This can include physical injuries, emotional distress, financial losses, or harm to one's reputation. Examples of torts include negligence, defamation, assault, and trespassing.

According to the Hopkins text, a state statute applies only to people in the state where it was adopted. Additionally, the state statute must be consistent with both the federal and the state's constitutions.

The person who appeals a case to a court of last resort is known as the petitioner. This is because the petitioner is the one who initiates the appeal and brings the case before the court. They are seeking a review or reversal of a lower court's decision. The respondent, on the other hand, is the party against whom the appeal is filed and must respond to the petitioner's arguments. The plaintiff and defendant are typically used in the context of the original trial, not the appeal process.

The decisions (precedents) of a U.S. Court of Appeals must be followed by the federal district courts under the jurisdiction of that U.S. Court of Appeals. This means that the federal district courts that fall within the jurisdiction of a specific U.S. Court of Appeals are bound to follow the decisions made by that Court of Appeals. This ensures consistency and uniformity in the application of law within the federal system.

According to the Hopkins text, the statement "The courts have the power and resources to enforce their own decisions" is false. The text likely explains that while the courts have the authority to interpret and make decisions, they rely on other branches of government, such as the executive branch, to enforce those decisions. Therefore, the courts themselves do not have the power and resources to enforce their own decisions.

The statement that a per curium opinion is issued and signed by one judge, writing for the court is false. A per curium opinion is actually a decision issued by an appellate court collectively, without identifying the individual judge or judges who wrote the opinion. It is a unanimous decision of the court and does not represent the opinion of one judge.