Question

What are the two general principles that determine whether the federal courts have jurisdiction over a case? Do you think these principles are broad enough? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Subject matter jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction.

Step-by-step explanation:

1. Subject-matter jurisdiction represents the court authorisation to discuss some subjects that are related to a certain thing, while the federal jurisdiction is the authorisation of all of the courts of USA that are related to a litigation. It is the law volume of the government.

Subject-matter jurisdiction can never give up the authority. Federal jurisdiction is limited to an area out of legislative power. The questions that federal court can discuss are applications of the articles of the constitution.

2. These principles are broad enough as they are respecting federal principles and give clear guidelines on dual system jurisdiction.

Answer 2

• subject matter jurisdiction
• Federal question jurisdiction

Step-by-step explanation:

The subject matter is a huge principle that helps the federal courts determine how necessary/important a case is and whether it is a case against the federal or state government and if the case is worthy to be heard by the Federal courts

The federal question jurisdiction is a principle that helps The federal courts determines whether a case brought before it. is a case pertaining to the Federal laws( articles of the Constitution) or it is a case that can be heard in lower state/magistrate courts. these principles are broad enough because they cover all neccessary procedures required before a case is brought before the federal courts