A US Supreme Court majority or plurality decision establishes or upholds a precedent for applying and interpreting federal or constitutional law, to be used by the lower courts in deciding relevant future cases. The Court may also overrule legislation found to be unconstitutional.
The initial question is very complex. Thus, any simple answer will be wrong to some degree. Therefore, a somewhat academic discussion is required to explain a complicated answer. One must start with the separation of powers structure of the Constitution and, therefore, our government: the Legislative branch that makes laws; the Judicial branch that interprets, and the Executive branch that enforces the law.
The Constitution is the "law" of the land; i.e., all laws made by Congress, and actions taken by the other branches must conform to constitutional principles; but it is not the only law. I assume the questioner is referring to interpretations of the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court. The interpretations made by the Court are law, they are what the Constitution means, at least until overruled. Thus, together (the Constitution and the interpretations) constitute constitutional law. The Court's decisions control the actions of the government and the citizen, thus, they constitute laws. To say that only the Constitution is "law" is to assign metaphysical content to the term. One cannot separate the Constitution as written from the interpretations made of it in Court decisions. Thus, the important idea is what is meant by the term "law." In an abstract or metaphysical sense, the Constitution is "the law", and the Court merely interprets or says what the Constitution has meant (or said) all along. In reality, the Court gives meaning to the Constitution and thus does "make law."
Note that one would say the same of statutes. However, the Congress can overrule the Court's interpretation of a statute.
Finally, there is a body of common law (federal and state). Common law, which is most of our laws, is judge-made law; e.g., tort law, contract law, criminal law, and evidence to name a few. Much of this has been codified and is now statutory, but much has not been codified. However, the Supreme does not get involved in this body of law unless it contravenes some Constitutional provision. An example is whether hearsay rules of evidence (common law) violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights (Constitutional law). The Court does not say what the common law should be, just whether or not it violates the Constitution. If so, the common law must be changed by the lower courts to reflect the Supreme Court's constitutional ruling. Rules of procedure are mostly made by courts, but also have in part been codified. But note that procedural law (rules) are often more important than substantive laws (statutes).
Precedents arise from the legal principles created by a court decision. In general, decisions of higher courts within a system are mandatory precedent on lower courts within that same system. The principle announced in the decision must be followed in later cases. Cases need not be identical or similar to control. The principle announced in a case transcends the particular facts in that case and will be applied to different fact situations. However, a decision may be grounded in the specific facts and will not be applied generally. Knowing the difference is what law school is all about. The process of judicial decision making, the use and role of precedents, constitutional and statutory interpretations, is what a legal education teaches.
If you have a future.
You wont have a child, that's all. It does not affect future pregnancies or fertility.
The Marbury v. Madison ruling cemented the idea of checks and balances by establishing the idea of judicial review. This allowed for the Supreme Court to interpret and declare laws unconstitutional as they saw fit.
The US Supreme Court is the only court specifically mentioned in the Constitution; none of the other federal courts, past, present or future, was mentioned.
Not necessarily. The US Supreme Court sometimes issues per curiam opinions that are binding (on the instant case) but unsigned; however, these decisions do not set precedent for future cases.
Since Roosevelt is long dead, I assume this is a homework question.
When conducting a SWOT Analysis company will be able to identify the strengths and weaknesses in the existing processes and procedures of the company. Secondly company can identify the opportunities that are available to expand the existing processes and procedures of the company for example from local market to foreign market expansion. Thirdly threats that are available can be also identified for better future of the company.
The future does not affect the past. The past effects the future.
Well, his appointment of Joihn Marshall as Chief Justice is considered to have been important for asserting the influence of the Supreme Court.
The future cannot affect the past.
If you have a future.
You wont have a child, that's all. It does not affect future pregnancies or fertility.
Chlamydia is not life-threatening. It can affect future fertility.
I think that cars will still be existing but they will not be that popular. Since technology is improving, better transport will be made.
it affect your future by what you do and how you act. hope that helped!
Affected is the past tense of affect.The future tense is "will affect".and going to affect or am/is/are affecting
the people's future will be a ashole