Lawyer/Attorney Information

Articles and Videos to get information about Lawyers and Attorneys

Legal System Basics: Crash Course Government and Politics #18

Legal System Basics: Crash Course Government and Politics #18

This week Craig Benzine takes a first look at the judicial branch. It’s pretty easy to forget that the courts, and the laws that come out of them, affect our lives on a daily basis. But how exactly these decisions are made and where each law’s jurisdiction starts and ends can get pretty complicated. So complicated in fact that you may want to smash something. But don’t worry, Craig will clear the way.

Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios:

Support is provided by Voqal:

All images are licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 2.0

Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook –
Twitter –
Tumblr –
Support Crash Course on Patreon:

CC Kids:


Don't miss out!
Subscribe To Newsletter
Receive top lawyer info, ideas, tips and more!
Invalid email address
48 Comments - Leave a Comment
  • Dorothy Home -

    I believe they are the only judges NOT subject to the gold clause because their position is backed by ‘money’ NOT fiat currency. They’re bonds are backed by silver or gold ?!?

  • surfing nerd621 -

    The ACA banked on the stupidity of the American voter. They rushed it through, didn't give people time to read it. And it sucked balls. It should be a law that laws be made for the laymen to understand. Like terms of conditions that everyone just checks without reading. Well that's because they're usually 1000 pages filled with terms that common people don't understand the meaning of. But in order to use your iPhone you have to agree to these terms. But no one reads or pays a lawyer to go through to make sure you aren't agreeing to something that you would never agree to. I mean, it could literally say that after 15 days Apple is entitled to your house. And you didn't read the terms and conditions and next thing you know the government is helping Apple take your house.

  • John Doughboy -

    I'm an attorney and I'm a big fan of this video. Its general explanation of fed courts in America is excellent. However, when the speaker states "who decides what in a case doesn't matter," that is a woefully misguided opinion.

    It would take me an hour, several law review articles (i.e., legal scholarship in the form of academic publications), and a couple of books to explain why bench vs. jury trials–or even binding arbitrations (since fed courts are setting a precedent of favoring resolving private disputes via contractually binding arbitration)–while still frightening in practice due to unpredictability, are nevertheless starkly different, the differences of which are highly consequential in any given case.

  • Haji Rauf -

    I'm pretty sure the us has four types of law criminal, civil, common and statute also you explained what common law is and never explained the difference between it and statute. good video but could have used better wording and maybe have gone a little more in depth.

  • Lachy Becke -

    is this summary of the US legal systems comparable to the legal systems in the UK and Australia? I get that there will be many minor differences, but, like, I'm from 'straya, sooooo it's basically the same, yeah?

  • gra4 u -

    A smart man says "if you want to break the law first study the law learn how it operates and how it applies to you." quote by Rex Ferel from a book called "hitman technical manual"

  • TheArtyandSmarty -

    "Turtles all the way down" is an expression of the infinite regress problem in cosmology posed by the "unmoved mover" paradox. The saying alludes to the mythological idea of a World Turtle that supports the earth on its back. The phrase suggests that this turtle rests on the back of an even larger turtle, which itself is part of a column of increasingly large turtles that continues indefinitely (i.e., that it is "turtles all the way down"). The metaphor is also used as an example of the problem of infinite regress in epistemology to show that there is a necessary foundation to knowledge.

  • Comments are closed.

    %d bloggers like this: