The US Constitutional Guidelines for Case Granting and Its Advantages - Essay Example

The judges of the federal courts are structurally envisaged to remain independent through a constitutionally designated separation of powers. Article III involves dealing with two basic features of the United States Constitution, namely federalism and separation of powers which makes it eternally relevant and contestable. Here, the constitution invests central powers with the United States Supreme Court as the only institution in which the highest judicial powers of the land are concentrated. According to Amar, “the Constitution clearly does limit in important ways congressional power to shift ultimate judicial power from federal to state courts” (1985, 271). Importantly, the federal judges and the lower court judges are not equal as the latter is constitutionally created as supreme and independent.

III) The Case or Controversy Requirement
The case or controversy requirement of Article III is meant for safeguarding the timely power allocation among the courts in an easy manner, the rightful representation of a party who is at the receiving end of the judgment, and protecting the matter of self-determinism. It has been argued that “the case or controversy requirement, also called the “justiciability” doctrine, includes more specialized notions of ripeness, mootness, and standing to sue, and prohibits consideration of constitutional issues except as a necessary incident to the resolution of a concrete “case” or “controversy” (Brilmayer, 1979, p. 297). This requirement is to affirm the dictation of ways to deal with constitutional issues by a federal court. Here, the underlying idea is that judicial power should be extended to all Cases without exception and it must be dealt with the principles of the US constitution or the laws and treatises under the preview of the constitution. The controversy to be judicial cannot be hypothetic or academic; it must be substantial and real. Therefore, federal courts are not meant for rendering advice.

The standing to sue involves the notion of real harm. The party involved must have suffered harm or at least been threatened by harm. The idea that “real harm must exist” too is corresponding to the idea of real controversy. A case cannot be granted if no parties involved have faced any real harm. For instance, a case could be permitted if there is physical harm as a result of burning but not the burning of anyone’s effigy as it is merely a symbolic expression. The same goes for the burning of the flag as well. The burning of the American flag cannot be seen as real harm as it does not really harm the national interests. Finally, the party should have a standing in the controversy except in the cases of the doctrine called ‘next friend standing which “allows a third person to file a claim in court on behalf of someone who is unable to file on his or her own (Belk, 2004, 1749). This prevents the misuse of the judiciary by the ones who are not legitimate parties in a case.

IV) Conclusion
The guidelines such as actual controversy, real harm, and original parties are advantageous for avoiding the use of court for illusory purposes and help to concentrate on real substantial issues originating from actual disputes. Read More