SELECCIN DE TEXTOS.

Este trabajo de compilacin contiene los

textos que se utilizarn para el dictado de
la materia. Los textos ilustran los distintos
ejes temticos abordados para la
enseanza de las tcnicas de comprensin
lectora en lengua extranjera

LECTOCOMPRENSIN
INGLS
MATERIAL DIDCTICO
ALUMNOS
UNIDAD 1

DEPARTAMENTO DE IDIOMAS
 UNIDAD 1:

DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL

2
 INDICE DE CONTENIDOS
Texto 1 : The United States Constitution COMPRENDER UN
NDICE
Texto 2: The Constitution Contents In Graphs COMPRENDER
GRFICOS
Texto 3: The Amendments to the Constitution COMPRENDER
GRFICOS & TEXTO
Texto 4 A: Amendment 1
Texto 4 B: Amendment 2COMPRENDER GRFICOS & TEXTO
Texto 5: Comparing Federal & State Courts COMPRENDER
UN TEXTO CON CUADRO COMPARATIVO
Texto 6: What is the difference between Common Law and
Civil Law?
COMPRENDER UN TEXTO PERIODSTICO

Apndice 1: STRUCTURE OF THE COURTS & TRIBUNAL SYSTEM

Apndice 2: U.S. FEDERAL COURTS MAP (COMPRENDER UN

MAPA)

Apndice 3: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 7TH

CIRCUIT

Apndice 4: MARBURY VS. MADISON

Apndice 5: JUDICIAL REVIEW (CARTOON ANALYSIS)

Apndice 6: HOW THE CASE MOVED THROUGH THE COURT

SYSTEM (FLOWCHART ANALYSIS)

Apndice 7: SUMMARY OF THE DECISION MARBURY V. MADISON

(TEXT FOR REVIEW)

3
Texto 1: THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

COMPRENDER UN NDICE

The United States CONSTITUTION

Table of Contents

Preamble
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
o Section 1 - The Legislature
o Section 2 - The House
o Section 3 - The Senate
o Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
o Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
o Section 6 - Compensation
o Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
o Section 8 - Powers of Congress
o Section 9 - Limits on Congress
o Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
o Section 1 - The President
o Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power,
Appointments
o Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
o Section 4 - Disqualification
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
o Section 1 - Judicial Powers
o Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
o Section 3 - Treason
Article 4 - The States
o Section 1 - Each State to Honor all Others
o Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
o Section 3 - New States
o Section 4 - Republican Government
Article 5 - Amendment
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
Article 7 - Ratification
Signatories
Amendments
o Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
o Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
o Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
o Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
o Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

4
 o Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
o Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
o Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
o Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
o Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
o Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
o Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice President
o Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
o Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
o Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
o Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

FUENTE: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html

5
Texto 2: THE CONSTITUTION CONTENTS IN
GRAPHS
COMPRENDER GRFICOS
CMO TRABAJAR CON DIAGRAMAS Y PARATEXTO GRFICO:

La seleccin de textos y grficos que aparece a continuacin tiene

como finalidad entrenar al alumno en las distintas modalidades para
abordar un texto y lograr su comprensin. En este caso especfico, se
trata de combinar texto y grfica para ver la incidencia que una tiene
en el otro para lograr una comprensin significativa con la gua del
docente

GRFICO 1

6
GRFICO 2

7
Texto 3: THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION

COMPRENSIN DE TEXTOS CON GRFICO

TEXTO:
THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION:
-The Founding Fathers knew that society would change over time and that the Constitution
would need to change to reflect changes in society. They provided a way to change the
Constitution. This process is called the Amendment Process.
AMENDMENT: A change to the original Constitution.
-Due to this flexibility and ability to change, the Constitution is known as a LIVING
DOCUMENT because it can be changed.
-Very difficult process: In over 200 years, there have been over 12,000 proposals to amend
the Constitution. Only 27 have been accepted. The first 10 were passed in 1791 and are
known as the Bill of Rights.
-In 1789, Bill of Rights was proposed; Ratified in 1791.
FORMAL AMENDMENT PROCESS: There are 2 ways to propose an amendment and 2 ways
to ratify an amendment.
PROPOSALS: RATIFICATION:
1. 2/3 vote in Congress 1. Ratified by State legislatures in
of the states.
2. National convention called by 2. Ratified by conventions held in
Congress when requested by 2/3 of the states.
of state legislatures.

8
GRFICO: THE AMENDMENT PROCESS
http://images.slideplayer.com/32/9947697/slides/slide_3.jpg

9
Texto 4 A: AMENDMENT 1

COMPRENDER TEXTOS CON IMGENES

AMENDMENT 1

AMENDMENT 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
-An established church was a national church supported by tax money.
-Freedom of speech and press may be limited if they create a danger to public safety,
health, or morals.
-Peaceable assembly may require a permit, and limits may be set on where and when
people and assemble.

10
Texto 4 B: AMENDMENT 2

COMPRENDER UN TEXTO CON IMGENES

AMENDMENT 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-ANTI-GUN GROUPS: They say that this amendment is based on the needs of the
1700 and 1800s for militia units to have their own weapons. Since this need is no longer current,
restrictions need to be placed on guns in order to reduce violence.
-PRO-GUN GROUPS: They say people have the right to keep and carry arms.

11
Texto 5: COMPARING FEDERAL & STATE COURTS
Fuente: http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-
structure/comparing-federal-state-courts
COMPRENSIN DE TEXTO CON CUADRO COMPARATIVO
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United
States. It creates a federal system of government in which power is
shared between the federal government and the state governments. Due
to federalism, both the federal government and each of the state
governments have their own court systems. Discover the differences in
structure, judicial selection, and cases heard in both systems.

Court Structure
The Federal Court System
Article III of the Constitution
invests the judicial power of the
United States in the federal
court system. Article III, Section
1 specifically creates the U.S.
Supreme Court and gives
Congress the authority to create
the lower federal courts.
Congress has used this power
to establish the 13 U.S. Courts
of Appeals, the 94 U.S. District
Courts, the U.S. Court of
Claims, and the U.S. Court of
International Trade. U.S.
Bankruptcy Courts handle
bankruptcy cases. Magistrate
Judges handle some District
Court matters.
The State Court System
The Constitution and laws of each
state establish the state courts. A
court of last resort, often known
as a Supreme Court, is usually
the highest court. Some states
also have an intermediate Court
of Appeals. Below these appeals
courts are the state trial courts.
Some are referred to as Circuit or
District Courts.
States also usually have courts
that handle specific legal matters,
e.g., probate court (wills and
estates); juvenile court; family
court; etc.

12
Court Structure (continued)
The Federal Court System The State Court System
Parties dissatisfied with a Parties dissatisfied with the
decision of a U.S. District decision of the trial court may
Court, the U.S. Court of Claims, take their case to the intermediate
and/or the U.S. Court of Court of Appeals-
International Trade may appeal
to a U.S. Court of Appeals.
A party may ask the U.S.
Supreme Court to review a Parties have the option to ask the
decision of the U.S. Court of highest state court to hear the
Appeals, but the Supreme case.
Court usually is under no
Only certain cases are eligible for
obligation to do so. The U.S.
review by the U.S. Supreme
Supreme Court is the final
Court.
arbiter of federal constitutional
questions.

Selection of Judges
The Federal Court System The State Court System

The Constitution states that State court judges are selected in

federal judges are to be a variety of ways, including
nominated by the President and election, appointment for a given
confirmed by the Senate. number of years, appointment for
life, and combinations of these
They hold office during good
methods, e.g., appointment
behavior, typically, for life.
followed by election
Through Congressional
impeachment proceedings,
federal judges may be removed
from office for misbehavior

13
Types of Cases Heard
The Federal Court System The State Court System
Cases that deal with the Most criminal cases, probate
constitutionality of a law; (involving wills and estates)
Cases involving the laws and Most contract cases, tort
treaties of the U.S.; cases cases (personal injuries),
involving ambassadors and family law (marriages,
public ministers; disputes divorces, adoptions), etc.
between two or more states;
State courts are the final arbiters
admiralty law; bankruptcy; and
of state laws and constitutions.
habeas corpus issues.
Their interpretation of federal law
or the U.S. Constitution may be
appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court may
choose to hear or not to hear
such cases.

14
Texto 6: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW?

CMO COMPRENDER UN TEXTO PERIODSTICO

The Economist explains

Fuente . http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economist-explains-
10

What is the difference between common and civil law?

Jul 16th 2013, 23:50 BY S.B.

IN THE summer of 2013 British royalists were eagerly awaiting the birth
of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridges first child. If the couple had
had a girl instead of bonny Prince George, she would have been the first
daughter to be able to accede to the throne ahead of any younger
brothers. That is thanks to a law enacted in 2011 that changed the rules
of royal succession. The previous law that sons took precedence over
older sisters was never written down, but was instead part of English
common law, the basis of the countrys legal system. But just what is
common law, and how does it differ from the civil-law system used in
some other countries?
Common law is a peculiarly English development. Before the Norman
conquest, different rules and customs applied in different regions of the
country. But after 1066 monarchs began to unite both the country and its
laws using the kings court. Justices created a common law by drawing
on customs across the country and rulings by monarchs. These rules
developed organically and were rarely written down. By contrast,
European rulers drew on Roman law, and in particular a compilation of
rules issued by the emperor Justinian in the 6th century that was
rediscovered in 11th-century Italy. With the Enlightenment of the 18th
century, rulers in various continental countries sought to produce
comprehensive legal codes.
Today the difference between common and civil legal traditions lies in
the main source of law. Although common-law systems make extensive
use of statutes, judicial cases are regarded as the most important source
of law, which gives judges an active role in developing rules. For
15
example, the elements needed to prove the crime of murder are
contained in case law rather than defined by statute. To ensure
consistency, courts abide by precedents set by higher courts examining
the same issue. In civil-law systems, by contrast, codes and statutes are
designed to cover all eventualities and judges have a more limited role
of applying the law to the case in hand. Past judgments are no more
than loose guides. When it comes to court cases, judges in civil-law
systems tend towards being investigators, while their peers in common-
law systems act as arbiters between parties that present their
arguments.
Civil-law systems are more widespread than common-law systems: the
CIA World Factbook puts the numbers at 150 and 80 countries
respectively. Common-law systems are found only in countries that are
former English colonies or have been influenced by the Anglo-Saxon
tradition, such as Australia, India, Canada and the United States. Legal
minds in civil-law jurisdictions like to think that their system is more
stable and fairer than common-law systems, because laws are stated
explicitly and are easier to discern. But English lawyers take pride in the
flexibility of their system, because it can quickly adapt to circumstance
without the need for Parliament to enact legislation. In reality, many
systems are now a mixture of the two traditions, giving them the best of
both legal worlds.
This first two lines of this piece were updated on December 2nd 2015 to
change tenses and reflect the birth of Prince George.

16
 UNIDAD 1:

DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL

MATERIAL ADICIONAL

17
 Apndice 1: STRUCTURE OF THE COURTS & TRIBUNAL
SYSTEM

Structure of the courts & tribunal system

F u e n t e : h t t p s : // w w w . j u d i c i a r y . g o v. u k / a b ou t - t h e - j u d i c i a r y / t h e - j u s t i c e - s y s t e m / co u r t -
structure/

Our courts system is complicated and in places confusing, because it has

developed over 1,000 years rather than being designed from scratch.
Different types of cases are dealt with in specific courts: for example, all
criminal cases will start in the magistrates court, but the more serious criminal
matters are committed (or sent) to the Crown Court. Appeals from the Crown
Court will go to the High Court, and potentially to the Court of Appeal or even
the Supreme Court.
Civil cases will sometimes be dealt with by magistrates, but may well go to a
county court. Again, appeals will go to the High Court and then to the Court of
Appeal although to different divisions of those courts.
The tribunals system has its own structure for dealing with cases and appeals,
but decisions from different chambers of the Upper Tribunal, and the
Employment Appeals Tribunal, may also go to the Court of Appeal.
The courts structure covers England and Wales; the tribunals system covers
England, Wales, and in some cases Northern Ireland and Scotland.
The diagrams in the link below show the routes taken by different cases as they
go through the courts system, and which judges deal with each.
Further information

The courts of England and Wales updated July 2015

Tribunals Structure Chart updated September 2016

18
Apndice 2: COMPRENDER UN MAPA

Distribucin Geogrfica de Tribunales Federales

19
Apndice 3: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
7TH CIRCUIT

COMO NAVEGAR POR PGINAS DEL SISTEMA JUDICIAL

20
Apndice 4: Marbury Vs. Madison

Marbury Vs Madison (versin por niveles)

Fuente: http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/272/Background_Summary__Questions_

A) BSICO; B) INTERMEDIO; C) AVANZADO

A) basic Background Summary ()
The President of the United States has the power to appoint
judges to the federal courts. Usually, the President appoints
individuals who are members of his political party or who share
his ideas about politics.
In 1800, John Adams was President. There was an election that
year. Thomas Jefferson, who belonged to another political party,
got elected. There were many positions in the federal government
that were empty. Before he left office, President Adams tried to fill
these positions with people who shared his ideas.
President Adams appointed 58 new people. He asked his
Secretary of State, John Marshall, to deliver the paperwork to
these people so they could start their new jobs. Marshall
delivered most of the papers. He was in a hurry, so he left some
of the papers for the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to
deliver. When he came into office, President Thomas Jefferson
told Madison not to deliver the papers to some of the people
Adams had appointed.
One of the individuals who didn't receive his papers was William
Marbury. He sued James Madison and tried to get the Supreme
Court of the United States to issue a writ of mandamus. A writ is
a court order that forces an official to do something. Marbury
argued that a law passed by Congress (the Judiciary Act of 1789)
gave the Supreme Court of the United States the power to issue
this writ. If the Court issued the writ, Madison would have to
deliver the papers. Then Marbury would become a justice of the
peace.
The Supreme Court of the United States had to decide the case.
The new Chief Justice of the United States was John Marshall.
He was the same person who had been unable to deliver the
paperwork in the first place
Important Vocabulary ()
As you read the background summary of the Marbury case, look for the important
vocabulary words that are italicized. When you come to one of those terms, look
at this page for its definition. Then, check to see if you understand the definition

21
by either sketching a picture of what you think it means, or by putting it in your
own words. Feel free to add terms from the reading that you would like to
practice.
sued (to sue)
Definition: To seek a remedy for a grievance or complaint in court
How would you express this in your own words or in a drawing?
appointed (to appoint)
Definition: To select to fill an office or position
How would you express this in your own words or in a drawing?
writ
Definition: A written order issued by a court, commanding a person to perform or stop
performing a specific act

B) intermediate Background Summary ()

Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Republican Party, won the
election of 1800. Before Jefferson took office, John Adams, the
outgoing President who was a Federalist, quickly appointed 58
members of his own party to fill government jobs created by
Congress. He did this because he wanted people from his political
party in office.
It was the responsibility of Adams' Secretary of State, John
Marshall, to finish the paperwork and give it to each of the newly
appointed officials. Although Marshall signed and sealed all of the
papers, he failed to deliver 17 of them to the appointees. Marshall
thought his successor would finish the job. But when Jefferson
became President, he told his new Secretary of State, James
Madison, not to deliver some of the papers. Those individuals
couldn't take office until they actually had their papers in hand.
Adams had appointed William Marbury to be justice of the peace
of the District of Columbia. Marbury was one of the last-minute
appointees who did not receive his papers. He sued Jefferson's
Secretary of State, James Madison, and asked the Supreme
Court of the United States to issue a court order requiring that
Madison deliver his papers.
Marbury argued that he was entitled to the job and that the
Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court of the United
States original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus, which is
the type of court order he needed. When the case came before the
Court, John Marshall the person who had failed to deliver the
commission in the first place was the new Chief Justice. The
Court had to decide whether Marbury was entitled to his job, and
if so, whether the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Court the
22
authority it needed to force the Secretary of State to appoint
Marbury to his position.
C) advanced Background Summary ()
Thomas Jefferson, a member of the Republican Party, won the
election of 1800. The outgoing President, John Adams, proceeded
to rapidly appoint 58 members of his own party to fill government
posts created by Congress.
It was the responsibility of the Secretary of State, John Marshall,
to "deliver the commissions," finish the paperwork, and give it to
each of the newly appointed judges. Although Marshall signed
and sealed all of the commissions, he failed to deliver 17 of them
to the respective appointees. Marshall assumed that his
successor would finish the job, but when Jefferson became
President, he told his new Secretary of State, James Madison, not
to deliver some of the commissions, because he did not want
members of the opposing political party to take office. Those
individuals couldn't take office until they actually had their
commissions in hand.
William Marbury, whom Adams had appointed as justice of the
peace of the District of Columbia, was one of these last-minute
appointees who did not receive his commission. Marbury sued
James Madison and asked the Supreme Court of the United
States to issue a writ of mandamus, a court order that requires
an official to perform or refrain from performing a certain duty. In
this case, the writ would have ordered Madison to deliver the
commission.
Marbury argued that he was entitled to his commission and that
the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court of the United
States original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. Madison
disagreed. When the case came before the Court, John Marshall
the person who had failed to deliver the commission in the first
place was the new Chief Justice. If this situation were to arise
today, Marshall would likely disqualify himself because of a
conflict of interest.

23
Apndice 5: JUDICIAL REVIEW (Marbury v.
Madison)

JUDICIAL REVIEW: POLITICAL CARTOON ANALYSIS of

Marbury v. Madison

Political Cartoon Analysis

Fuente: http://landmarkcases.org/en/landmark/teaching_strategies/political_cartoon_analysis

24
Apndice 6: HOW THE CASE MOVED THROUGH THE COURT
SYSTEM

How the Case Moved through the Court System

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Fuente: http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/359/How_the_Case_Moved_through_the_Court_System
Comprender un grfico/ DIAGRAMA DE FLUJO

Article III, Section 2 lays out the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction."
Learn more about the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the
United States.

25
Apndice 7: Summary of the Decision Marbury
v. Madison

Summary of the Decision Marbury v. Madison

BEFORE AND AFTER: Mapping the decision for meaning
The Court unanimously decided not to require Madison to deliver
the commission to Marbury. Chief Justice Marshall understood
the danger that this case posed to the power of the Supreme
Court. Because Madison was President Jeffersons secretary of
state and Jefferson was head of the Democratic Party while Chief
Justice Marshall and Marbury were Federalists, President
Jefferson was almost certain to direct Madison to refuse to deliver
the commission to Marbury. If the Court required Madison to
deliver the commission and Madison refused, the Court had no
power to force him to comply, and, therefore the Court would
look weak. If the Court did not act, it would look like the justices
made their decision out of the fear that Madison would not obey
their decision.
The justices struck a middle ground between these alternatives in
their opinion, written by Chief Justice Marshall. The Court ruled
that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that according
to the Constitution, the Court did not have the authority to
require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury in this
case. They found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with
the Constitution because it gave the Supreme Court more
authority than it was given under the Constitution. The dispute
centered around the difference between the Supreme Courts
original jurisdiction and its appellate jurisdiction. If the Court
has original jurisdiction over a case, it means that the case can
go directly to the Supreme Court and the justices are the first
ones to decide the case. If the Court has appellate jurisdiction,
however, the case must first be argued and decided by judges in
the lower courts. Only then can it be appealed to the Supreme
Court, where the justices decide whether the rulings of the lower
courts were correct. Marbury brought his lawsuit under the
Courts original jurisdiction, but the justices ruled that it would
be an improper exercise of the Courts original jurisdiction to
issue the writ of mandamus in this case.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Supreme Court to

issue writs of mandamus to persons holding office under the
authority of the United States. A writ of mandamus is a
26
command by a superior court to a public official or lower court to
perform a special duty. The Court said this law attempted to give
the Court the authority to issue a writ of mandamus, an exercise
of its original jurisdiction, to Secretary of State Madison.
However, Article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, as the
Court read it, authorizes the Supreme Court to exercise original
jurisdiction only in cases involving ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and those [cases] in which a state shall be
a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have
appellate jurisdiction. The dispute between Marbury and
Madison did not involve ambassadors, public ministers, consuls,
or states. Therefore, according to the Constitution, the Supreme
Court did not have the authority to exercise its original
jurisdiction in this case. Thus the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the
Constitution were in conflict with each other.

Declaring the Constitution superior, paramount law, the

Supreme Court ruled that when ordinary laws conflict with the
Constitution, they must be struck down. Furthermore, it is the
job of judges, including the justices of the Supreme Court, to
interpret laws and determine when they conflict with the
Constitution. According to the Court, the Constitution gives the
judicial branch the power to strike down laws passed by
Congress, the legislative branch. This is the principle of judicial
review. Thus, it has been recognized since this decision that it is
emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to
say what the law is.

Through this decision, Chief Justice Marshall established the

judicial branch as an equal partner with the executive and
legislative branches within the developing system of government.
By refusing to require Madison and Jefferson to deliver the
commission to Marbury, he did not give Madison the opportunity
to disobey the Court, making it look weak. And, by declaring the
Courts power through the principle of judicial review, he made it
clear that the justices did not make their decision out of fear.
Instead, he announced that the Constitution is the supreme law
of the land, and established the Supreme Court as the final
authority for interpreting it.

27