Andrew Johnson appointed nine Article III federal judges during his presidency, all to United States district courts.

Article III of the Constitution specifies that Associate Justices, and all other United States federal judges " shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.

To consider but one example, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "— but interpretation ( that is, determining the fine boundaries, and resolving the tension between the " establishment " and " free exercise " clauses ) of each of the important terms was delegated by Article III of the Constitution to the judicial branch, so that the current legal boundaries of the Constitutional text can only be determined by consulting the common law.

In the United States, the power of the federal judiciary to review and invalidate unconstitutional acts of the federal executive branch is stated in the constitution, Article III sections 1 and 2: " The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Later cases interpreted the " judicial power " of Article III to establish the power of federal courts to consider or overturn any action of Congress or of any state that conflicts with the Constitution.

Since the 12th century, courts have had parallel and co-equal authority to make law -- " legislating from the bench " is a traditional and essential function of courts, which was carried over into the U. S. system as an essential component of the " judicial power " specified by Article III of the U. S. constitution.

Before the entry into force of Protocol 11, Section II ( Article 19 ) set up the Commission and the Court, Sections III ( Articles 20 to 37 ) and IV ( Articles 38 to 59 ) included the high-level machinery for the operation of, respectively, the Commission and the Court, and Section V contained various concluding provisions.

Crain asserts that he " is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state ," that the " Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated " lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven.

:: Example 1 ( parliamentary monarchy ): Article III, Section 15 of the Constitution Act, 1867, a part of the Constitution of Canada, states:

" Its primary functions in this area, according to Article III, are to encourage research and development, to secure or provide materials, services, equipment and facilities for Member States, to foster exchange of scientific and technical information and training.

" To do this, the IAEA is authorized in Article III. A. 5 of the Statute " to establish and administer safeguards designed to ensure that special fissionable and other materials, services, equipment, facilities, and information made available by the Agency or at its request or under its supervision or control are not used in such a way as to further any military purpose ; and to apply safeguards, at the request of the parties, to any bilateral or multilateral arrangement, or at the request of a State, to any of that State's activities in the field of atomic energy.

Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office " during good behavior ", implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment and conviction.

Marbury v. Madison,, was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.

Nonetheless, the Court stopped short of compelling Madison ( by writ of mandamus ) to hand over Marbury's commission, instead holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established.

* Does Article III of the Constitution create a " floor " for original jurisdiction, which Congress can add to, or does it create an exhaustive list that Congress can't modify at all?

Marshall then looked to Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions ( see Relevant Law above ).

Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction " all cases affecting … public ministers and consuls ," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a " public minister consul.

The move raised tensions with the Soviets, who responded that Germany was supposed to have consulted with the Soviet Union under Article III of the Molotov – Ribbentrop Pact.

" The Supreme Court holds " The judicial Power " according to Article III, and it established the implication of Judicial review in Marbury vs Madison.

Under this provision, the Congress may create inferior courts under both Article III, Section 1, and Article I, Section 8.

The Article III courts, which are also known as " constitutional courts ", were first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Article III courts are the only ones with judicial power, and so decisions of regulatory agencies remain subject to review by Article III courts.

Only the " fundamental rights " under the federal constitution apply to Puerto Rico like the Privileges and Immunities Clause ( U. S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the ' Comity Clause ') that prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner, with regard to basic civil rights.

The Puerto Rican citizenship was first legislated by the U. S. Congress in Article 7 of the Foraker Act of 1900 and recognized by the Puerto Rico constitution.

This transformed the article IV United States territorial court in Puerto Rico, created in the year 1900, to an Article III federal judicial district court.

Article III of the Constitution of Puerto Rico states that no person can be a member of the Senate unless he or she:

Article III of the Constitution of Puerto Rico states that no person can be a member of the House of Representatives unless he or she:

Section 9 of Article III of the Constitution of Puerto Rico states that should a Party control more than two-thirds of the seats in the House of Representatives, the losing candidates with the most percentage of votes will be given seats in the Legislature until the total of minority members reaches seventeen ( 17 ).

The structure and responsibilities of the Legislative Assembly are defined in Article III of the Constitution of Puerto Rico.

Two years later on July 25, 1952 the Constitution of Puerto Rico was formally adopted, establishing the modern House of Representantes and Senate as the bicameral houses of the Legislative Assembly ( as stated in Article III ).

Under Article III, Section 5, members of the Legislative Assembly must be bilingual in both Spanish and English, must be a citizen or legal resident of the United States, and have resided on Puerto Rico for two years.

As the electoral system is majoritarian, the section 7 of Article III of the Puerto Rican constitution s: Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico allows for additional members to be added to either chamber to enhance the opposition party's representation.

Before 1966, the United States District Court in Puerto Rico was an Article IV court.

In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed,, which transformed the Article IV federal district court in Puerto Rico to an Article III Court.

From then on, judges appointed to serve on the Puerto Rico federal district court have been Article III judges appointed under the Constitution of the United States.

A " United States district court ", created under Article III of the U. S. Constitution, exists only in a United States federal judicial district, which is found only in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Though they could be considered " territorial courts " in a semantic sense ( since their jurisdictions are not states ), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico are not U. S. territorial courts since D. C. and Puerto Rico are Article III federal judicial districts.

On Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298 ( 1922 ) the U. S. Supreme Court concluded as an argument of non-incorporation: “ The United States District Court ( in Puerto Rico ) is not a true United States court established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer the

From this moment on, judges appointed to serve on the Puerto Rico federal district court have been Article III judges appointed under the Constitution of the United States.

transformed the Article IV federal district court in Puerto Rico to an Article III Court.

* Philippine Entertainment Portal Article on Rico Blanco's departure from Rivermaya

Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 266-267 ; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298, 312-313 ; cf.

Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 266-267 ; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298, 312-313 ; cf.