A fact from Federal tribunals in the United States appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 June 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I just nominated this article to be listed on the Did you know section (see Template talk:Did you know).
People will love this article! -- Toytoy 02:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I propose that we relocate the Article I controversy to the end of the article. Article III courts are usually the "courts" in people's daily languages. Very few people and even lawyers ever went to an administrative court. We have to emphasis the importance of Article III courts. -- Toytoy 03:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
There are also several administrative patent judges at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (see interference proceeding. I think they are also Article I judges. -- Toytoy 07:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
ALJs actually do have life tenure though they are not article III judges. The article is confusing on this point. However the decisions of ALJs are ususally appealable to an agency appeals board which is not made up of ALJs so otherwise, the article is correct. ALJs are certainly not Article III judges. One can argue that many of them are Article II judges, but the distinction between Article I courts and Article II courts does not seem important. Esorlem 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should merge this article with United States federal courts. That page is rather sparse at present, and I find the title and organization of this one rather awkward. Thoughts? Ddye 17:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In all this discussion, I see no mention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC} which is responsible for considering surveillance & physical search orders from the Dept. of Justice & US intelligence agencies. I don't even know if there's a Wikipedia article on the existence of this Court . . .
A Google search for "court foreign intelligence" will turn up a number of hits, including an "Ask Yahoo!" item dealing with this Court.
FISA is not an Article III tribunal. 66.171.197.20 20:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I just came across a couple of orphan pages for the military COAs. I'm not sure where to put them, but they need to be wikified.
Mneumisi 12:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
In the same vein, we should probably include an item here somewhere for Article II tribunals such as courts martial -- while some fall neatly into the Article I category (legislatively created -- such as the Article II tribunals reconstituted as Article I tribunals after Congress passed the Military Commissions Act to deal with Guantanamo), some do not (inherently created by the executive using Article II commander-in-chief powers). While the legal status of such tribunals is up in the air, the recent Guantanamo detainee cases have made such tribunals a live controversy. 71.63.19.244 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Another Article II court is the High Court of American Samoa. This is the trial and appeals court for the territory of American Samoa, but it is not an Article I court (as other territorial courts are) because it was not established pursuant to an Act of Congress. It was created originally by the Department of the Navy (who administered AS after cession in 1901, not the Secretary of Interior administers it). Appeals lie from the High Court to the Secretary of the Interior, who in practice does not exercise his appellate authority. Final judgments can be reviewed in the DC district court under the Administrative Procedures Act, but only for violations of the Constitution or the Federal statutes, not for violations of AS law. Manojb 08:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You say "No, Congress did not make any law to govern the territory, but just gave the power to do so to the President." But you are not considering how Congress did this or by what authority. Actually, Congress "gave power" by enacting a law and the President signed that law putting it into effect. The law Congress enacted said "President, you go ahead and set up whatever 'court' in the territory of Samoa that you want. We are too busy with other things." But without that law, the President had no authority under Article II to set up anything. Regarding Tiede, the President was acting as Commander in Chief and had authority over the Occupied Territory of Germany. The Foreign Service Act (a law enacted by Congress and signed by the President) further delegated all kinds of authority to the US authorities in Germany. (Indeed, the EO [1] 10608 says he's acting as CinC. Unfortunately, the term "Article II court" has become common, even in legal journals. See, for example [2], a William & Mary Law Review article which uses the term while discussing military commissions. (Compare: [3].) While I disagree with this characterization (it is sloppy legal scholarship), I am not Sisyphus. At the same time, please observe WP:OR. Citing a footnote in US v Tiede, a very unique case, is not a good encyclopedic editing practice. And be careful of the Slippery Slope. That is, if the US Berlin Court is an "Article II court" because the President issued an EO, then every "court" described in the Federal Register or promologated by an EO becomes an "Article II court" and there is no distinction between any of the Article I and "Article II" courts. My basic position -- that nothing in Article II authorizes the President to set up any courts -- will stand, but I'm not going to fight editing efforts to the contrary.-- S. Rich ( talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm still confused as to why the "United States Court in Berlin" is not an Article II court, per US v. Tiede. The Court's authority derives from the powers of an occupying military power as recognised under international law, which is exercised in the ultimate by the President as Commander-in-Chief. The fact that the President delegated to the US Ambassador, whose role is governed under the Foreign Service Act, the task of setting up this court, doesn't make the Court somehow a creature of the Foreign Service Act. Hypothetically, suppose the Foreign Service Act, and related laws, never existed - the President could still appoint Ambassadors, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, per Article II of the Constitution. Congress may, and has, pass laws governing Ambassadors, but no Congressional legislation is necessary for Ambassadors to exist, and the role of Ambassador was not created by Congress (it was created by Article II). Alternatively, the President, rather than delegating this power to the US Ambassador, could have chosen to retain this power personally, and hence appointed this court. So, the US Court in Berlin was not an Article I or IV court, its an Article II Court. 60.225.114.230 ( talk) 12:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Article IV and Article III courts.
References:
United States territorial court
NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES (01-10873) 540 U.S. 935 (2003), The United States Supreme Court, retrieved 2010-01-06
-- Seablade ( talk) 05:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Article I and Article III tribunals → Tribunals in the United States – Or possibly another title, if someone can suggest one. This article discusses Article IV tribunals as well, so I feel that the title is slightly misleading. NW ( Talk) 13:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The Article III tribunals section states that the enumerated courts are the current ones, basically the usual court structure plus the Court of International Trade. That may be true today, however both the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the United States Court of Claims were once Article I and Article III courts, after some intervening changes. Both were (separately) abolished in 1982. Technically [after looking at it again] it is accurately worded, but that historic detail might be relevant if anyone wanted to add it.
That's probably not completely relevant, but I may add the line "current" or something similar to that. If anyone else has details though please add them. Shadowjams ( talk) 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There is some confusion. The last sentence of the first paragraph states, "Many United States territorial courts are defunct because the territories under their jurisdictions have become states or have been retroceded.". The beginning of the next paragraph states, "An example is the High Court of American Samoa...". As far as I know, and the Wikipedia article indicates, the High Court of American Samoa is still an Article IV court. "An example is..." would be indicative of referring to the High Court of American Samoa as being defunct. Maybe the sentence should read:
Done Otr500 ( talk) 10:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The list of Article 1 courts perhaps incorrectly include BIA: See An Urgent Priority: Why Congress Should Establish an Article I Immigration Court, by Hon. Dana Leigh Marks among others. 786wiki ( talk) 15:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The article says:
What retrocessions? Is this about retrocession of unincorporated territories to other countries? Or giving part of DC back to Virginia? Or giving part of an incorporated territory back to a state? Or what? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello 2001:569:7BCD:6900:9D90:B7A:69CA:E3C ( talk) 09:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
A fact from Federal tribunals in the United States appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 June 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I just nominated this article to be listed on the Did you know section (see Template talk:Did you know).
People will love this article! -- Toytoy 02:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I propose that we relocate the Article I controversy to the end of the article. Article III courts are usually the "courts" in people's daily languages. Very few people and even lawyers ever went to an administrative court. We have to emphasis the importance of Article III courts. -- Toytoy 03:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
There are also several administrative patent judges at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (see interference proceeding. I think they are also Article I judges. -- Toytoy 07:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
ALJs actually do have life tenure though they are not article III judges. The article is confusing on this point. However the decisions of ALJs are ususally appealable to an agency appeals board which is not made up of ALJs so otherwise, the article is correct. ALJs are certainly not Article III judges. One can argue that many of them are Article II judges, but the distinction between Article I courts and Article II courts does not seem important. Esorlem 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should merge this article with United States federal courts. That page is rather sparse at present, and I find the title and organization of this one rather awkward. Thoughts? Ddye 17:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In all this discussion, I see no mention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC} which is responsible for considering surveillance & physical search orders from the Dept. of Justice & US intelligence agencies. I don't even know if there's a Wikipedia article on the existence of this Court . . .
A Google search for "court foreign intelligence" will turn up a number of hits, including an "Ask Yahoo!" item dealing with this Court.
FISA is not an Article III tribunal. 66.171.197.20 20:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I just came across a couple of orphan pages for the military COAs. I'm not sure where to put them, but they need to be wikified.
Mneumisi 12:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
In the same vein, we should probably include an item here somewhere for Article II tribunals such as courts martial -- while some fall neatly into the Article I category (legislatively created -- such as the Article II tribunals reconstituted as Article I tribunals after Congress passed the Military Commissions Act to deal with Guantanamo), some do not (inherently created by the executive using Article II commander-in-chief powers). While the legal status of such tribunals is up in the air, the recent Guantanamo detainee cases have made such tribunals a live controversy. 71.63.19.244 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Another Article II court is the High Court of American Samoa. This is the trial and appeals court for the territory of American Samoa, but it is not an Article I court (as other territorial courts are) because it was not established pursuant to an Act of Congress. It was created originally by the Department of the Navy (who administered AS after cession in 1901, not the Secretary of Interior administers it). Appeals lie from the High Court to the Secretary of the Interior, who in practice does not exercise his appellate authority. Final judgments can be reviewed in the DC district court under the Administrative Procedures Act, but only for violations of the Constitution or the Federal statutes, not for violations of AS law. Manojb 08:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You say "No, Congress did not make any law to govern the territory, but just gave the power to do so to the President." But you are not considering how Congress did this or by what authority. Actually, Congress "gave power" by enacting a law and the President signed that law putting it into effect. The law Congress enacted said "President, you go ahead and set up whatever 'court' in the territory of Samoa that you want. We are too busy with other things." But without that law, the President had no authority under Article II to set up anything. Regarding Tiede, the President was acting as Commander in Chief and had authority over the Occupied Territory of Germany. The Foreign Service Act (a law enacted by Congress and signed by the President) further delegated all kinds of authority to the US authorities in Germany. (Indeed, the EO [1] 10608 says he's acting as CinC. Unfortunately, the term "Article II court" has become common, even in legal journals. See, for example [2], a William & Mary Law Review article which uses the term while discussing military commissions. (Compare: [3].) While I disagree with this characterization (it is sloppy legal scholarship), I am not Sisyphus. At the same time, please observe WP:OR. Citing a footnote in US v Tiede, a very unique case, is not a good encyclopedic editing practice. And be careful of the Slippery Slope. That is, if the US Berlin Court is an "Article II court" because the President issued an EO, then every "court" described in the Federal Register or promologated by an EO becomes an "Article II court" and there is no distinction between any of the Article I and "Article II" courts. My basic position -- that nothing in Article II authorizes the President to set up any courts -- will stand, but I'm not going to fight editing efforts to the contrary.-- S. Rich ( talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm still confused as to why the "United States Court in Berlin" is not an Article II court, per US v. Tiede. The Court's authority derives from the powers of an occupying military power as recognised under international law, which is exercised in the ultimate by the President as Commander-in-Chief. The fact that the President delegated to the US Ambassador, whose role is governed under the Foreign Service Act, the task of setting up this court, doesn't make the Court somehow a creature of the Foreign Service Act. Hypothetically, suppose the Foreign Service Act, and related laws, never existed - the President could still appoint Ambassadors, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, per Article II of the Constitution. Congress may, and has, pass laws governing Ambassadors, but no Congressional legislation is necessary for Ambassadors to exist, and the role of Ambassador was not created by Congress (it was created by Article II). Alternatively, the President, rather than delegating this power to the US Ambassador, could have chosen to retain this power personally, and hence appointed this court. So, the US Court in Berlin was not an Article I or IV court, its an Article II Court. 60.225.114.230 ( talk) 12:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Article IV and Article III courts.
References:
United States territorial court
NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES (01-10873) 540 U.S. 935 (2003), The United States Supreme Court, retrieved 2010-01-06
-- Seablade ( talk) 05:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Article I and Article III tribunals → Tribunals in the United States – Or possibly another title, if someone can suggest one. This article discusses Article IV tribunals as well, so I feel that the title is slightly misleading. NW ( Talk) 13:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The Article III tribunals section states that the enumerated courts are the current ones, basically the usual court structure plus the Court of International Trade. That may be true today, however both the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the United States Court of Claims were once Article I and Article III courts, after some intervening changes. Both were (separately) abolished in 1982. Technically [after looking at it again] it is accurately worded, but that historic detail might be relevant if anyone wanted to add it.
That's probably not completely relevant, but I may add the line "current" or something similar to that. If anyone else has details though please add them. Shadowjams ( talk) 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There is some confusion. The last sentence of the first paragraph states, "Many United States territorial courts are defunct because the territories under their jurisdictions have become states or have been retroceded.". The beginning of the next paragraph states, "An example is the High Court of American Samoa...". As far as I know, and the Wikipedia article indicates, the High Court of American Samoa is still an Article IV court. "An example is..." would be indicative of referring to the High Court of American Samoa as being defunct. Maybe the sentence should read:
Done Otr500 ( talk) 10:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The list of Article 1 courts perhaps incorrectly include BIA: See An Urgent Priority: Why Congress Should Establish an Article I Immigration Court, by Hon. Dana Leigh Marks among others. 786wiki ( talk) 15:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The article says:
What retrocessions? Is this about retrocession of unincorporated territories to other countries? Or giving part of DC back to Virginia? Or giving part of an incorporated territory back to a state? Or what? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello 2001:569:7BCD:6900:9D90:B7A:69CA:E3C ( talk) 09:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)