The system: sources, powers and courtsEl sistema: fuentes, poderes y tribunales

Valid federal law is the supreme law of the land; conflict preemption displaces the state rule.El derecho federal válido es ley suprema; la preemption por conflicto desplaza la regla estatal.

U.S. Const. art. VI cl. 2

Decisions of the court of appeals for her circuit bind her; other circuits only persuade. Circuit splits are resolved by the Supreme Court on certiorari.Las decisiones del tribunal de apelación de su circuito la obligan; los demás circuitos solo persuaden. Los desacuerdos entre circuitos los resuelve la Corte Suprema por certiorari.

Stare decisis; class notes, ch. 1 and 3

Marbury's logic applies to every court deciding a case under a written constitution; the Supreme Court's word is final because of appeal and precedent, not because review belongs to it alone.La lógica de Marbury aplica a todo tribunal que decide un caso bajo una constitución escrita; la palabra de la Corte Suprema es final por la apelación y el precedente, no porque el control sea solo suyo.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Third Youngstown category: the President may rely only on his own exclusive powers, and none covers seizing private businesses.Tercera categoría de Youngstown: el Presidente solo puede apoyarse en sus facultades exclusivas, y ninguna cubre tomar empresas privadas.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (Jackson, J., concurring)

Impeachment is a two-step political process: House accusation by majority, Senate trial with two-thirds for conviction.El impeachment es un proceso político en dos pasos: acusación de la Cámara por mayoría, juicio en el Senado con dos tercios para condenar.

U.S. Const. art. I §§ 2–3; art. II § 4

Alienage diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 opens the federal courthouse; the federal judge will then apply Texas contract law.La diversidad por extranjería del 28 U.S.C. § 1332 abre el tribunal federal; el juez federal aplicará entonces el derecho contractual de Texas.

28 U.S.C. § 1332

A state that elects judges must tolerate the speech that makes elections meaningful; the line runs between views on issues (protected) and pledges about cases (regulable).Un estado que elige jueces debe tolerar el discurso que da sentido a la elección; la línea va entre opiniones sobre temas (protegidas) y promesas sobre casos (regulables).

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002)

Memorize the three zones; every presidential power question uses them.Memoriza las tres zonas; toda pregunta sobre poder presidencial las usa.

AnswerRespuesta: Marshall held that Marbury had a right to his commission and that mandamus was the proper remedy, but that the Supreme Court could not issue it because the statute granting original jurisdiction to do so conflicted with Article III. Jefferson's administration therefore faced no order to defy. In refusing jurisdiction, the Court asserted the far greater power to measure acts of Congress against the Constitution and to refuse to apply those that conflict.

• right and remedy yes, power of this court no
• no order Jefferson could defy
• establishes judicial review

AnswerRespuesta: U.S. federal judges are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and serve during good behavior with salaries that cannot be reduced; they leave only by death, resignation or impeachment. Mexican federal judges historically came through a judicial career and examinations, with Supreme Court ministros appointed by the Senate from presidential shortlists for fifteen-year terms; since the 2024 reform, federal judges and ministros are elected by popular vote for fixed terms. The American model trades accountability for independence; the Mexican reform makes the opposite trade and raises the campaign-speech problem of White.

• nomination and Senate confirmation; life tenure; salary protection
• Mexico: career and Senate appointment before 2024; popular election after
• independence versus accountability