he fourth amendment was heavily rooted in the legal doctrine. The fourth amendment was created to limit the government 's power.
1. According to the case law of Illinois v Allen, the US supreme court held that “trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, and stubbornly defiant defendant must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case. The court further observed that at least three constitutionally acceptable avenues exist for dealing with a defiant defendant, in the case of Ms. Roberts she was a very defiant defendant. The avenues are 1.
The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications.
Federalists believed the Constitution provided just the right mix of power and limitations. The federalists wanted to make sure the central government either had more or less power. The first government of the US was a one-house legislature with no executive. It couldn't raise money, it relied on the states for military power, and was generally seen as ineffective and weak. The US Constitution was written to remedy those weaknesses and provide the US with a better, more representative form of government.
Sophie Byrne John Ward POLI 100 29 March 2023 Two Week Essay Assignment Week 10 & 11 In "The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review," published in the Yale Law Journal, Jeremy Waldron argues against the concept of judicial review, which is a concept allowing courts to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Waldron argues that this concept undermines democracy and should be replaced by a system of parliamentary sovereignty; where the legislative branch holds the power to determine the final outcome when interpreting the constitution.
What is actually happening is allowing Supreme Court justices to serve for life. An article stated that “by making new appointments less frequent, longer tenure has diminished the abilities of presidents and senators to provide the only form of democratic accountability that is consistent with judicial independence,” (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). William Douglas, who has set record for Supreme Court tenure (almost 37 years) who has cast the deciding vote, along with Hugo Black who retired at the age of 85 and Thurgood Marshall who retired at the age of 83. “ I’m getting old and falling apart,” Marshall said on his last day (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). That’s why it is better to bring fresh perspectives, and especially those people who understand the
Alexander Hamilton believed that the judicial branch is the least dangerous branch for several reasons. Perhaps Hamilton felt it is the least dangerous of the three branches of government because it does not make the laws as the legislative branch does; it simply interprets the laws that have been passed by the legislative branch and that have been approved by the executive branch. Also, there was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same influence from a constitutional design standpoint. The effects of this is that the president and congress do have some control over the judiciary branch with their power to appoint and confirm appointments of judges and justice. Congress also may impeach judges which is very rare, alter the organization of the federal court system, and amend the Constitution.
The amendment process as stated in the Constitution is the process that “An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.”. There are many pros and cons of the amendment process and I will discuss a few of them in this essay. In my opinion, there are more cons than pros of the amendment process. A con of the amendment process is that there isn’t much room for change as time goes on Better said as the amendments are outdated.
When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.
Federal Amendment: Article II Presidency The 2000 election between Bush and Gore adopted the nickname of the stolen election of 2000 due to the outcome that led to Bush’s win without having the popular vote. The possibility of the loser of the popular vote to potentially still win the electoral vote and overall the presidential candidacy is an issue. The framers of the constitution included the Electoral College in order to serve as a common ground between the states. However, this system is flawed in terms of the regulation of one person equal one vote.
The positive effect that brought by the charter of right and freedom During the October crisis the privacy and properties were invaded by the government severely. The rights of the residents were ignored. But thanks to the Charter of Right and Freedom the government can do it no more. The charter stated specific list of residential rights which created positive effects on protecting civilian’s right in Canada The Charter of Right and Freedom protected and promoted the right if the civilians of Canada. The first section of the Charter of Right and Freedom stated “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified
What is the “Due Process?” The due process is a fair Treatment through the normal Judicial system, especially as a citizen’s entitlement It respect all legal rights that are balances the power of law of land and protects the individual person. What does it do?
Throughout your childhood, your family undergoes challenges-challenges as demanding as their future expectations change their outlook on life. As a person grows, they tend to shape their personality through the things told to them by the family that grows up with them. Mary Shelley illustrates this truth when she wrote her famous book “Frankenstein”. Following the death of her mother, “she...veiled her grief.. [and] looked steadily on life” even though, she was still hurting.
The argument alone is sufficient to see that the courts having the power of judicial review could be disastrous. Knowing that this power gives leeway for an Oligarchy to form , I still believe that it gives power for the Judiciary to provide fair and just service to us as a
Lastly, courts lack the resource to implement policies in line with their decisions. Thus, even when cases are won, “court decisions are often rendered useless” as litigants are left to the task of implementation (Rosenburg 21). Despite the Constrained Courts view that courts are insufficient in producing social change, “it does not deny the possibility” (Rosenburg 21). When the right factors are in place and certain conditions in favor of the case’s outcome, courts can be a powerful institution in promoting justice (Hall 2).
