After reviewing Justice Brennan’s dissenting opinion, I cannot agree with his argument that a conducting a protective sweep surpasses the purpose of the Terry v. Ohio decision. Justice Brennan agreed that a protective sweep was not a full-blown search, but it was much more intrusive than a limited pat down for weapons or the frisk of an automobile (Sifferlen, 1991). Also, Justice Brennan also stated he believed officers’ should possess probable cause to initiate a protective sweep of a home (Sifferlen, 1991). The Terry v. Ohio decision permits law enforcement officers to perform a pat down of the outer clothing, when the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the subject he or she is dealing with, is armed and dangerous (Hall, 2015). The main purpose of Terry v. Ohio decision is to locate weapons that may be used to hurt the
The judicial review process is an important aspect of the US Court system. The process involves the use of powers by the Federal Courts to void the congress' acts that direct conflict with the Constitution. The Marbury v. Madison is arguably the landmark case that relates to Judicial Review. The Marbury v. Madison case was written in the year 1803 by the Chief Justice at that time named John Marshall. Thomas Jefferson won an election on the Democratic - Republican Party that had just been formed creating a panicky political atmosphere having defeated John Adams of the previous ruling party.
Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948, in Pin Point, Georgia. His father left his family when he was young. That, and other issues as the years passed led his family into money problems. Clarence and his brother were sent to live with their grandfather and step-grandmother. His grandfather had a major influence on his religious beliefs.
John Marshall’s Supreme Court hearings had a positive effect on the United States. From court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, declared that the federal courts could decide if state laws were unconstitutional. The McCulloch v. Maryland trial went to the supreme court because Maryland had put a tax in place that too 2% of all assets of the bank or a flat rate of $30,000. John Marshall saw this tax as unconstitutional for the simple fact that people were being denied their property under the state legislature. From the Gibbons v. Ogden case, congress’s power over interstate commerce was strengthened.
John Marshall had a significant impact on strengthening the national government during his term as Chief Justice from 1800-1830. Marshall achieved this goal by strengthening the power of the Supreme Court in three main court cases. In Marbury v. Madison Marshall established the practice of judicial review, then in McCulloch v. Maryland he weakened the central government and Gibbons v. Ogden provided the federal government with the ability to regulate interstate commerce. Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a court case that began the practice of judicial review. This case started because the night before President John Adams term ended, he appointed 42 justices of the peace.
The founding father’s idea when they created the Constitution was to prevent a centralized government. As expressed by James Madison in Federalist No. 51, they believe that the power surrendered by people would be divided between the federal and state governments, creating balance of power that would enable both governments to control each other. Over time, the balance of power between the federal and state governments has shifted in favor of the federal government and this has taken place with the help of the Constitution and by enactments of Congress. The role that Chief Justice John Marshall played in defining the power of the federal and state governments during the early 19th century is important to mention because he shaped the nation.
Justice Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite opposition from other justices and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the founding fathers had meant for it when the Constitution was written. Scalia’s critics contended that the Constitution is a “living document,” therefore, it should allow the courts to take into consideration evolving viewpoints of society. I. Antonin Scalia: A brief overview of his law career beginning in 1961.
The Marbury v Madison case took place in 1803 when the secretary of state, James Madison, refused to seat four judicial appointees despite them being confirmed by the senate. While the court had already ruled it was wrong to prevent Marbury from taking office, the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court announced for the first time that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court also stated that Marbury was in the right but more so that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional deemed so because Congress could not give the Supreme Court power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission in the first place. A similar statement came from Chief Justice John Marshall when he stated that Congress could not give the Supreme Court the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission because Congress had exceeded its authority by extending jurisdiction.
Justice Stevens wrote an impassioned dissent that claimed the ruling decided by the majority would threaten the democratic process. The justice initiates his dissent by refuting the claim that Citizen’s United or any other corporation’s speech has been barred. Through political action committees these organization have the ability to spend unlimited funds to endorse their favored candidates at any location or at any time apart from the restricted dates. Stevens goes on to disprove of the courts basic foundation that regulation of the corporation is based on speaker’s identity which is unconstitutional. This is an incorrect view of the law that is not held in the constitution.
In current day America there are two main ways of interpreting the constitution. These two ways are known as textualist and developmentalist philosophies. In the video “A Conversation on the Constitution” Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia both showcase many examples of these two philosophies and have a discussion on how both methods affect the modern political scene. This leads to a very insightful discussion on how the constitution should be interpreted; should it be interpreted as written or be interpreted to align with current societal values.
Pragmatic. Moderate. Persevering. These are just some of the words that describe Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who, a few days before his meeting with the president, had gotten into a car accident with a punctured lung and broken ribs. After rushing out of the hospital to meet Bill Clinton, Breyer was appointed as a Justice on August 3rd, 1994 (Oyez).
At first glance, one would assume “We the People” would include everyone. This, however, is not true. Marshall stated that the framers intended for these rights to essentially be only for “free” men—excluding other races and women (Marshall). Though it would seem logical to think that a document with a preamble, articles and amendments would be specific, in some aspects, the convention left some things unsaid or ambiguous. The Constitution was designed to be a “living” document.
After watching the YouTube video Justice Antonin Scalia: The US Constitution is 'Dead ' and listening to the interviewer quote “the constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead” I had already began to piece together the idea of what the constitution being considered living was that the idea of the constitution being dead to me meant that the items within the constitutions preamble as well as its articles were no longer being applied or exercised to the people, for the people. The Preamble of the constitution states “In order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide common defense…” so by the comment of being of the idea of dead, it sounds as if those points in the preamble are
Judicial Review was always argued by John B. Gibson, Anti federalist and even President Andrew Jackson, identifying several arguments against it, for example; “Judicial review could lead to political turmoil if the other branches of government, or state, refuses to acquiesce to the court’s interpretation of the constitution”. Anti-federalists were against the judicial review like Brutus, who feared that the court would use judicial review to eliminate the power of the state courts, they believe it’s a threat since it could enforce Supreme Court decisions which President Andrew Jackson disagree with “Judicial review makes the judiciary equal or even superior to the legislature, even though judges are not elected”. Federalist 78 was the 78th
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on. Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education). Dred Scott v. Sanford Is a case that most people felt that Dred Scott had an unfair charge against him.
