At different times in U.S history the government has disputed about certain actions that limited civil liberties. Some include the Executive Order 9066 which relocated Japanese Americans in 1942 and the USA Patriot Act in 2001. These acts impacted the United States majorly. They both occurred after a tragic event took place and the government wanted to protect themselves, the people, and the country. The Executive Order 9066 was passed after the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese in 1941.
In the hundreds of years since the US was founded, the role of the President has changed dramatically. From the very beginning of the country to the complexities of the modern era, unexpected changes, including those that could not be predicted by the creators of our constitution, have happened. While the founders fancied a powerful executive, they also imagined that the presidency would work within the constraints set forth in the Constitution and with cooperation with the other branches of the government. This is very clear in the US Constitution as well as Federalist 51, which are the foundations of this country. To begin with, the power of executive orders has expanded the oversight of the role of the President.
Nixon claimed from his subpoena that he had “executive privilege” which gave him the right to withhold information from other governing branches for their protection. Nixon claimed it was his right to executive power. The court stated that Nixon wasn’t able to have separation of powers, withhold any communication from other leaders, and he didn’t have a executive privilege. The court granted there was limited executive privilege.
With regard to the Watergate scandal, a handful of Nixon’s aides testified that Nixon had secretly taped every conversation that took place in the Oval Office, which became known as “Nixon’s tapes.” Soon, there was a subpoena issued for “all tapes and other electronic and/or mechanical recordings or reproductions, and any memoranda, papers, transcripts or other writings ,” yet Nixon refused to give them up by claiming “executive privilege,” the right to withhold information in the public interest. This trial became known as United States vs. Nixon, where the unanimous court forced him to hand the tapes over asserting that nobody, even the president, was above the laws of the Constitution. Nixon’s abuse of power in claiming executive privilege and refusal to obey the congressional subpoena brought his downfall and subsequent disgraceful resignation of the presidency. Contrastingly, up to this day, President Trump has not claimed executive power as a legal defense.
I agree with the Supreme Court on placing emphasizes on keeping the presidential power in check but respecting the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court has the power to hear cases that involve federal questions because the
Throughout history , presidents have taken different steps in abusing the executive orders and other presidential directives. Many citizens expressed different views over the executive abuse and benefits the presidents have. The increased use of executive legislation in the absence of challenges from Congress has expanded the power, boundaries, and pose a serious threat to the democracy.
Should the Executive Privilege Be Absolute In United States, the Executive Privilege played a positive role on the president in domestic and foreign policy decisions, defend national interests and the protection of national defense secrets. However, this privilege can be abused by the president and executive members as well in seizing power, even provide legal basis to disguise their illicit activities at the White House. In my point of view, I think the executive privilege should not be absolute due to lack of transparency and supervision on the matter of personal interest and national security. As the strongest nation across the global, the president and members of the executive of the United States has the power to conduct a number of operations or information in secret and the executive privilege grants them to resist some legislative and branches of government for disclosing those communications if would potentially interfere the functions of executive branch (Legal Information Institute).
An enduring topic of political debate is executive power, the power to enforce the law. Because the Constitution only loosely defines this power (Document A), the presidents themselves define much of their own authority, which has led to inflated presidential power over the past two and a half centuries. There are many examples of presidents expanding their power in history. For example, Abraham Lincoln broke boundaries no president had before. “Lincoln called for 75,000 military volunteers after Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, and he later suspended habeas corpus—seemingly both congressional powers” (Document E).
The use of these powers determine if the president is going beyond the limits of the office. Many argue that the president has abused these powers with the use of the Unitary Executive Theory, which states that the Constitution puts the president in charge of executing the laws, and that nobody can limit the president’s power when it comes to executive powers. It therefore tips authority from Congress to the presidency, upsetting the power of checks and balances.
How much power the president has to act alone in matters involving national security has been an ongoing topic of
The United States Supreme Court is not transparent to the citizens in this country and they fail to publicly reveal reasoning’s to their decisions that they have made. The courts non-transparency make people wonder and uncomfortable for congress has to openly show how they voted one bills Jeffrey L. Fisher razes this type of questions in his article “The Supreme Court’s Secret Power” in The New York Times he raises concern for the Supreme Court and the justice; claiming that they have become too powerful and the people of this country deserve to see how each justice vote due we entrusted them I the position and we deserve to know if they are in good favor.
To understand, what is "discretionary decision making" within the Criminal Courts, let me explain what is discretion. According to the textbook America 's Courts and The Criminal Justice System discretion is the lawful ability of an agent of government to exercise choice in making a decision. Now, "discretionary decisions in the criminal court process are made on the basis of legal judgements" (Neubauer & Fradella, p132). The "three major subcomponents are legal judgements, policy priorities, and personal philosophies" (Cole, 1970; Smith)". An example would be a prosecutor who refuses to file a criminal charge because in her legal judgement, the evidence is not enough to prove all the elements of the offense" (Neubauer & Fradella).
During WWI, the American government issued the Espionage and Sedition Acts in 1917. These limited the power of the people and were very controversial. Similarly, the Executive Order 9066 that Roosevelt issued in 1942 proclaimed military zones that took away rights. In contrast, the
Assignment #1 Review questions Chap. 1 p. 26: 1. A single standard of ethics cannot be applied to all criminal justice agencies. The world is too complex to legislate morality and ethics. The cultures that make up each part of the world are not the same.
According to Annual Abortion Statistics, “Twenty-one percent of all U.S. pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. (AGI)” (U.S. Abortion Statistics 1) Abortion is a procedure that is continuously happening every second of the day and can be performed for many reasons. In today’s society, abortion is one of the single-most controversial topics. Abortion has caused many brutal confrontations because everyone has their own opinion on this topic.
