SELECCIÓN DE TEXTOS.

Este trabajo
de compilación contiene los textos que se
utilizarán para el dictado de la materia.
Los textos ilustran los distintos ejes
temáticos abordados para la enseñanza
de las técnicas de comprensión lectora en
lengua extranjera

LECTOCOMPRENSIÓ
N – INGLÉS
MATERIAL
DIDÁCTICO
DOCENTES

UNIDAD 1

DEPARTAMENTO DE
IDIOMAS

UNIDAD 1:
DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL
 1
INDICE DE CONTENIDOS
 ​ he United States Constitution
Texto 1 : T

Texto 2: ​The Constitution Contents In Graphs

Texto 3: ​The Amendments to the Constitution ​Texto

​ mendment 1
4 A: A

​ mendment 2
Texto 4 B: A

Texto 5:​ Comparing Federal & State Courts

Texto 6: What is the difference between Common Law and

Civil Law?

Apéndice 1: ​STRUCTURE OF THE COURTS & TRIBUNAL SYSTEM

Apéndice 2: ​U.S. FEDERAL COURTS MAP

Apéndice 3: ​UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 7TH

CIRCUIT

Apéndice 4: ​MARBURY VS. MADISON

Apéndice 5: ​JUDICIAL REVIEW (CARTOON ANALYSIS)

Apéndice 6: ​HOW THE CASE MOVED THROUGH THE COURT

SYSTEM (FLOWCHART ANALYSIS)

Apéndice 7: ​SUMMARY OF THE DECISION MARBURY V. MADISON

(TEXT FOR REVIEW)
 2
Texto 1: THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

COMPRENDER UN ÍNDICE

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
• ​Article2 - 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
• ​Article3 - The Judicial Branch
o ​Section 1 - Judicial Powers ​o ​Section 2 - Trial by Jury,
Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials ​o ​Section 3 - Treason
• ​Article4 - 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
3
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
 4
Texto 2: ​THE CONSTITUTION CONTENTS IN GRAPHS

COMPRENDER GRÁFICOS

CÓMO TRABAJAR CON DIAGRAMAS Y PARATEXTO GRÁFICO:

La selección de textos y gráficos que aparece a continuación tiene como
finalidad entrenar al alumno en las distintas modalidades para abordar un
texto y lograr su comprensión. En este caso específico, se trata de
combinar texto y gráfica para ver la incidencia que una tiene en el otro
para lograr una comprensión significativa con la guía del docente

GRÁFICO 1
 5
GRÁFICO 2
6
Texto 3: ​THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION

COMPRENSIÓN DE TEXTOS CON GRÁFICO

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

3⁄4 of the
states.

2. National convention called by 2. Ratified by conventions held in

Congress when requested by 2/3 3⁄4 of the states.

of state
legislatures.

7
GRÁFICO: THE AMENDMENT PROCESS
http://images.slideplayer.com/32/9947697/slides/slide_3.jpg
8
Texto 4 A: AMENDMENT 1

COMPRENDER TEXTOS CON IMÁGENES

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.
 9
Texto 4 B: AMENDMENT 2

COMPRENDER UN TEXTO CON IMÁGENES

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 1800’s 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.

10
Texto 5: COMPARING FEDERAL & STATE COURTS
Fuente: ​http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-
structure/comparing-federal-state-courts ​COMPRENSIÓN 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 The State 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.
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. 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.
States also usually have courts that handle specific legal matters, e.g.,
probate court (wills and estates); juvenile court; family court; etc.
11
Court Structure (continued)
The Federal Court System The State Court System ​Parties dissatisfied
with a decision of a U.S. District Court, the U.S. Court of Claims, and/or the
U.S. Court of International Trade may appeal to a U.S. Court of Appeals.
Parties dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court may take their case to
the intermediate Court of Appeals-
A party may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals, but the Supreme Court usually is under no obligation to
do so. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of federal constitutional
questions.
Parties have the option to ask the highest state court to hear the case.
Only certain cases are eligible for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Selection of Judges
The Federal Court System The State Court System
The Constitution states that federal judges are to be nominated by the
President and confirmed by the Senate.
They hold office during good behavior, typically, for life. Through
Congressional impeachment proceedings, federal judges may be removed
from office for misbehavior
State court judges are selected in a variety of ways, including election,
appointment for a given number of years, appointment for life, and
combinations of these methods, e.g., appointment followed by election
12
Types of Cases
Heard

The Federal Court System The State Court System

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

• ​Most contract cases, tort cases

 13
Texto 6: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW?

CÓMO COMPRENDER UN TEXTO PERIODÍSTICO

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 Cambridge’s 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 country’s 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 king’s 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 example, the
elements needed to prove the crime of murder are contained in case law
rather than defined by statute. To ensure
14
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.
 15

UNIDAD 1:

DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL
 MATERIAL ADICIONAL

16
Apéndice 1: ​STRUCTURE OF THE COURTS & TRIBUNAL
SYSTEM

Structure of the courts & tribunal system

Fuente: ​https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/court- 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

17
Apéndice 2: ​COMPRENDER UN MAPA
Distribución Geográfica de Tribunales
Federales
 18
Apéndice 3: ​UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
​
7TH
​ CIRCUIT

COMO NAVEGAR POR PÁGINAS DEL SISTEMA JUDICIAL

19
Apéndice 4: ​Marbury Vs. Madison

Marbury Vs Madison (versión por niveles)

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

A) BÁSICO; B) INTERMEDIO; C) AVANZADO

​ ackground Summary (•) ​The President of the United States has

A) ​basic B
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 i​ s 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

20
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
​ ow would you express this in your own words or in a
position H
drawing?

writ ​Definition: ​A written order issued by a court, commanding a person to perform or

stop performing a specific act

B) ​intermediate B ​ ackground 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

21
if so, whether the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Court the 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.

22
Apéndice 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
 23
Apéndice 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 gráfico/ 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."
more about the ​original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of
▪ ​Learn
the United States​.
 24
Apéndice 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 Jefferson’s 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 Court’s 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 Court’s original jurisdiction, but the justices ruled that it would be an
improper exercise of the Court’s 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

25
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 Court’s 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.

26