0
The North won the civil war. That means that States rights are trumped by Federal Laws and Regulations.
The civil war was fought over this issue. The South felt that we were a group of individual countries (states) bound together by common defense. They felt that each state should print their own money and make their own laws that carried more weight then the Federal laws. The North disagreed.
Another Perspective:
The states have the ability to resolve their own disputes outside the legal system. If the effort fails and one or more states want to bring suit, the case is filed in the federal court system because each state has a built-in conflict of interest and couldn't arrive at a fair conclusion (if they could, the case wouldn't be in court).
Article III of the Constitution vests the US Supreme Court with original (trial) jurisdiction over these cases, and Congress decided to make their jurisdiction exclusive (only the Supreme Court can decide the case). The process is intended to ensure a fair decision.
This has nothing to do with the cause or result of the Civil War; all provisions of the original Articles of the US Constitution became operational in 1789, approximately 75 years earlier.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Wiki User
∙ 9y agoThe Constitution strives for fairness in the federal system. It gives federal courts jurisdiction over these types of cases in order to provide neutral ground to hear these cases. State courts could be biased in these situations.
Wiki User
∙ 10y agoThe federal court has jurisdiction over the entire country, while state courts have jurisdiction only within that state, so if two states are involved, neither has jurisdiction over both states, only the federal government does.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What authority does the supreme court have over states?
The supreme court is the court of last resort in the federal legal system and federal courts can overrule state courts. The Supreme Courts also settles disputes between states,such as the location of state borders .
What is one difference between state and federal courts in the US?
A: Only federal courts handle cases between citizens of different states
Who has the power to settle disputes between the states?
The US Supreme Court is the only federal court that hears cases involving disputes between the states.According to Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, the US Supreme Court, head of the Judicial Branch, has original jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between the states. At present, this power is exclusive to the Supreme Court.
What important function serves the supreme court in the US federal government?
It has original jurisdiction over, and therefore the power to resolve, disputes between states. -Apex
Disputes between states and the federal government were settled by?
The Constitution
Federal courts have the legal authority over several things name two?
Federal courts have legal authority over cases involving federal laws and the interpretation of the United States Constitution. They also have jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between different states or between the United States and a foreign country.
What authority does the supreme court have over states?
The supreme court is the court of last resort in the federal legal system and federal courts can overrule state courts. The Supreme Courts also settles disputes between states,such as the location of state borders .
Does a state or federal courts try cases dealing with disputes between states?
The US Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between the states. This is the only place such cases are heard.
What is the court of original jurisdiction in the federal system?
US District Courts have original jurisdiction in most cases of general jurisdiction; however the US Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in a limited class of cases, such as those involving disputes between the states.
Whose disagreements are heard by federal court?
Disputes between states.
How many cases between states do federal courts try?
The US Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between the states; they typically only hear one to three per Term.
What is one difference between state and federal courts in the US?
A: Only federal courts handle cases between citizens of different states
Which court must hear cases involving disputes between two states?
state courts
Why do most cases take place in state courts?
Most cases take place in state courts because the majority of legal issues involve state laws and regulations, such as criminal matters, family law disputes, and contract disputes. State courts have jurisdiction over these cases, while federal courts tend to focus on cases involving federal laws, constitutional issues, and disputes between parties from different states. Additionally, state courts are more accessible to individuals and businesses, making them a popular choice for resolving legal matters.
Are there small claims courts in the federal system?
No. A federal court would have no jurisdiction over disputes between individuals that would be considered "small claims." If the dispute were between residents of the same state over a debt, for example, there would be no federal question, therefore no federal jurisdiction. If the dispute were between residents of different states, the federal courts would have diversity of citizenship jurisdiction only if the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
How would disputes between the federal government and the states be settled?
its anything you put your mind to
How would the criminal justice system be different today if the Founding Fathers had allowed state courts to enforce federal laws and had not created a separate system of federal courts?
Without separate systems for State Courts and Federal Courts, the boundary between States and Federal government would be blurred. This would dilute the powers of both States and Federal, create controversies, and power struggles to find an equilibrium between States' and Federal to enact and enforce laws. For example, if the Federal level made a law that one of the 50 states found unreasonable, the State could try to avoid charging under that law. 22 more States might join that argument, so the issue could split the US States both for and against Federal legislation. No one would get anything done except trying to clarify these disputes.
