ipl-logo

Pros And Cons Of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

1873 Words8 Pages

When asked what they know about Arizona many folks will tell you something along the lines of how hot it is there, or that it is a desert. Others will relate it to the wall that our president has promised to build, and a few will relate it to Joe Arpaio who calls himself America’s toughest sheriff. Anyone from Arizona knows all too well the controversy that is attached with that name. Recently, President Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the controversy is once again causing a whirlwind of opinions. Although the presidential pardon is a privilege that comes with being in office, the pardoning of Sheriff Joe Arpaio by President Trump was unethical and an abuse of power. First let us consider who Sheriff Joe is and why he needed to be pardoned. …show more content…

Phillip Rucker and Ellen Nakashima reporters for The Washington Post confirm that Trump had consulted with Attorney General Jeff Sessions about the case against Arpaio. The president was seeking council about if the government was able to discontinue the pursuit of Arpaio’s criminal case. Sessions recommended to Trump that it would not be proper to do so. The president knew he would be able to grant Arpaio clemency, if the case went to court and he was convicted. Trump decided to wait, all the while with the plan of issuing the pardon if necessary. The Arpaio case was essentially dropped at this point. Trump was never going to let Arpaio be in the position to take responsibility for his actions. This is an abuse of power because he chose to use the privilege of the pardon to get his …show more content…

Sidney Rosdeitcher, Senior Policy Advisor at Brennan Center, writes “The Constitution requires the President to take an oath ‘to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution’ and requires him ‘to take care that the laws be faithfully executed’.” When President Trump pardoned Arpaio he broke these oaths. The president did not defend the constitution because it was a civil right that Arpaio was convicted of breaking. Trump also did not allow the laws to be executed because the pardoned was issued for Arpaio before he was even sentenced. Chong quotes Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law School professor who advises that “the only legally binding check on law enforcement is the authority of the judiciary to say what the law is.” This is important because in an event that law enforcement is abusing its power (such as the Arpaio case) there must be a system in place to protect the people. By pardoning Arpaio the president has taken the Justice Department’s power away and broke his oath to see that the laws be faithfully executed. This is an abuse of power because the president broke his oath to issuing this

Show More
Related
152 Words | 1 Pages

In request for proposal to be qualified as a Sterile Processing Technician Program. My career objective has always been to work in a setting where I find propose in caring for others. To be a member of the healthcare world has always been a long time goal. While searching for employment I came across the program in which I believe this will be a great opportunity working toward my goal. My previous employment obligations were working with individuals in a direct support setting with DDS Residential Group Homes.

Read More
454 Words | 2 Pages

He appealed the ruling in 2014. He claimed that according to his lawyers, if he pled guilty, he would only

Read More
654 Words | 3 Pages

While it may be a bit extreme to associate Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti with the image of two pure, well-intentioned individuals inequitably cheated by the legal system (they supported Luigi Galleani, an anarchist leader who committed several acts of terrorism and published newspapers that contained bomb-making manuals) the proclamation stated by the governor of Massachusetts in 1977 wasn’t incorrect in stating that the Sacco Vanzetti trial had been influenced by several unjust factors. In fact, Webster Thayer, who judged the infamous case, was quoted as saying to a group of friends early in the trial, “Did you see what I did to those anarchist [explicative deleted] the other day?” Based on this quote alone, it appears as though judge Thayer was driven by some ulterior motives in his decision making -perhaps the desire to punish anarchists for whatever reasons to which he owed the misfortune of despising them- a quality that in no way should ever characterize a judge. Not only was Webster Thayer incredibly biased, but evidence sufficient enough to prove the two men guilty was never supplied.

Read More
1005 Words | 5 Pages

Ernesto Miranda was tried for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old female. When they brought him in, the girl was not able to positively identify him in a lineup (Miranda V. Arizona). He was then interrogated for two hours by two of the officers that arrested him. At the end of the interrogation, Ernesto wrote and signed a confession (United States Courts). Ernesto was tried in Phoenix Arizona, but his lawyers said that the trial was unfair and that his 5th and 6th amendment rights had been violated due to the fact that Ernesto was never told his rights (Miranda V. Arizona).

Read More
772 Words | 4 Pages

Article 3 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to review cases and declare a verdict. However, the Supreme Court is only allowed to make a decision regarding a case if and only it is brought to them. In other words, only cases that has been passed through the lower courts and has made its way up into the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court allowed to make a decision. From the founding of the constitution, many cases have made its way up the courts and into the Supreme Court where the Justices deliver the final verdict. Cases similar to that of Nixon vs. United States challenged the federal power of the President.

Read More
584 Words | 3 Pages

Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.

Read More
485 Words | 2 Pages

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

Read More
2668 Words | 11 Pages

I believe that Sandusky should consider himself lucky that he did not receive more time in

Read More
238 Words | 1 Pages

The candidates that are running for president are terrible. I wouldn’t want to picky any of them. However, if I had to pick a certain celebrity, it would only come close to Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney seems to show as the only person that could actually run in this election and be professional.

Read More
1138 Words | 5 Pages

An appeals court will have to decide whether all this means he's innocent, or guilty. Since he's still alive any

Read More
648 Words | 3 Pages

This is evident since the judicial branch cannot enforce power, it cannot approach matters, but matters have to seek the judiciary, and public opinion influences the court’s decisions to a great extent. When the President and Congress think that

Read More
919 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
474 Words | 2 Pages

I remember watching live while they were deciding on whether or not there would be an indictment. The entire time I was nervous. I thought for sure that Wilson would have to face the consequences. In the end. No indictment.

Read More
546 Words | 3 Pages

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).

Read More
1638 Words | 7 Pages

Keep in mind, Barker has been in jail waiting for a trial for four years now. The state scheduled trials many times, but only to request yet another continuance. On the 12th request for continuance in February of 1963, Barker finally put in a motion to dismiss indictment due to a violation of the speedy trial clause. The court denied this request, but Barker objected again on the 15th request for continuance. Once again, he was

Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Open Document