When people think of how government works, unless they’ve taken a government class, they usually think of Congress making laws and the President doing pretty much everything else. No one pays much attention to the Supreme Court unless there is a landmark case or something else to grab the news — like the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the Supreme Court does much more than you’d think regarding keeping the political machine running like a well-oiled … machine. Through not only interpretation of the law, but also judicial activism, the Supreme Court shows it can have as much influence over the laws of the land as either of the other branches of the federal government. In this paper, I will analyze the decision-making methods of the Court using the cases of Gideon v. Wainwright and Betts v. Brady.
Assignment 5: Anita Hill VS Clarence Thomas Introduction In 1991, Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the nation’s highest court retired. However, before Thurgood Marshall could retire, someone would have to take his place. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court where he would eventually be sworn in on October 23, 1991 (EEOC); But before Clarence Thomas was sworn into the U.S. Supreme Court, a scandal involving a college law professor arose.
Justice Stephens wrote the majority opinion stating that the power to vote for legislative members should be directly chosen by the people, not by the States. Powell v. McCormack established that the Qualification Clause for Congress listed in the Constitution are exclusive and the “fundamental principle of our representative democracy.” Adding such limitations to candidates takes away the direct vote from the people and destroys the “uniform national system” that the Constitution wanted for Congress. The Framers recognized that electing the legislature was a new idea that stemming from the Constitution, thus, not a right of the “original powers” of the states. The court also concluded that Framers divested the states of any power to add qualifications, because there was no right before the ratification of the Constitution.
Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese held different views on the interpretation of the Constitution when it came to ruling in a case. Brennan held the view that judicial review should be done constitutionally, but to keep human dignity in mind when ruling in a case. Brennan makes his opinion on the matter known saying, “The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority.” (Brennan). Unlike Brennan, Meese believed in sticking strictly to what the constitution stated for most matters.
Edwin Meese III held quite a different view as compared to that of William Brennan. Meese held the opinion of strictly following exactly what is stated in the Constitution of the United States, otherwise known as fidelity. In his essay he focuses on fidelity often. Edwin Meese portrays his belief in his essay as he quoted Justice Joseph Story, “The First and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.” (Meese).
In William Brennan’s view on the American Constitution he focused on human dignity to determine his interpretation. As he states in his essay, “But we are an aspiring people, a people with faith in progress. Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline.” (Brennan).
The Brennans were a fairly well like family in Mumbilli. That was up until Daniel, the eldest son, crashed his car under the influence of alcohol that killed two of his friends and rendered his cousin Fin a quadriplegic. The Story of Tom Brennan follows the lives of Daniel’s family after the incident and the amount of pain and suffering they went through. The story has a heavy focus on Daniel’s younger brother and year eleven student Tom and his life with all of the torment and pain. “Everything we do in life affects others.”
(Explain) Samuel Alito represents the more conservative side because he cares about taxpayers and wants to keep the tradition of capital punishment. Whereas Sonia Sotomayor represents the more liberal side because she wants everyone to have equal opportunities and rights, including
As the United States of America takes shape through the molding of our nations leaders such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, many controversies arise and these men are the first to set precedent for the nation. Many of these controversies occur during the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, although these men were both of the same political party, the way they responded to the call of presidency happened to be very different. As Jefferson and Madison lead the people of the American nation, both held power for the party of Jeffersonian Democrats, yet Madison’s strict interpretation of the constitution tended to contradict the loosely interpreted decisions of his predecessor Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson can be called many things but during his presidency Jefferson can most accurately be described as a
This is because while Washington’s relationship with the court system was positive, Lincoln experienced friction and a lack of support. Since Washington was the first president, he was responsible for developing the entire Supreme Court. With that, he methodically chose justices to represent the people, and he wanted them to protect and represent the Court’s federal authority. Washington’s Court was productive and honorable, but that changed by the time of Lincoln’s presidency. When Lincoln entered office, the majority of the Court’s justices were Southerners who were opposed to his Republican stances.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, Article III of the U.S. Constitution never spoke of the definite roles or powers that the Court has the right to obtain, saying, “the Congress should from time to time establish” (Document A). The government was calling for a loose construction, which John Marshall, being a federalist, agreed with. This relaxed form of government gives the judicial branch more power, increasing its privilege. Next, during John Adams presidency, John Adams had proposed that John Jay, an ex-Chief Justice, be given a place on the Supreme Court. Jay rejected the offer, stating how the Court did not possess, “energy, weight, and dignity” (1801)
This notion oftentimes can enable yet inhibit the system simultaneously, but nonetheless his ideologies have fallen on the side of conservatism. Halliburton noted in his book about Thomas’ life that “the fact that he is a conservative African American makes Thomas different and strangely alone” (88) and “is also the most closely watched” (88). Halliburton’s statements may or may not be true but the fact remains the same that his decisions and opinions on court cases are expected to be a reflection of his party affiliation especially when it comes to the interpretation of the constitution, particularly in this case the fourth amendment. Because of this Thomas must weigh party ideas with his own interpretation of the constitution which at points in his career caused opposition from other politicians mainly in instances when his interpretation seemed extreme and/or
American Constitution Introduction History shows that pluralism is linked to democracy which is a system characterized by checks and balances of autonomy or power. Such autonomy is the one in play in forging an agreement of the general interest that dictates administrative strategy or policy framework. On the other hand elitism notion regarding the administration states that a chosen few of the most affluent and influential people or groups direct and influence public policy that works in their favor and satisfies their own interests. Various scholarly standpoints reveal that a more contemporary notion of American administration and partisan matters incorporate the two worldviews of partisan behavior.
Not Suckered Afterall The purpose of this paper is to refute an argument made by Magness and Brennan’s from their paper Gen Eds: Sucker U. In Magness and Brennan’s paper they argue through a variety of means that colleges requiring students to take general education classes are immoral; the means that they use are empirical data and deductive reasoning. In this essay I will initially lay out Magness and Brennan’s argument to my own understanding from their paper; after which I will consider some consequences if the argument is sound then following that the last half of the paper will be my objections to Magness and Brennan’s argument along with some concluding thoughts. Before I get to deep into things one must understand that in this paper
As the branch with the final say in legal matters, the Supreme Court acts as the champion of justice and objectivity, but the current nomination process for Supreme Court justice erodes the unbiased nature of the judicial branch. Today, party politics dictate the appointment of Supreme Court justices; for instance, in 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to even permit a hearing for President Barrack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. Fortunately, a simple, practical solution exists; instead of leaving important legal decisions to the whims of a select group of individuals, coin flips should determine the outcome of all legal cases and controversies. Great men are forged in fire, but U.S. Mint quarters are forged at a blistering
