In addition, James Madison stated the idea of Checks and Balances and what it will do to the government, “...the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that they may be a check on the other... The three branches should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” This statement means that each branch should have a different power, so they wouldn’t have any constitutional control over each other. That makes each branch check on the other branches to make sure they are doing everything correctly. One way that the Judicial Branch can check on the Legislative Branch is that when Congress creates laws, the Court can declare laws unconstitutional because some laws might not be a good idea for the people of the country, so the Judicial has the power to take away the possible law.
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.
Without judges that protect the constitution, the travel ban might have still been in effect which would allow President Trump as well as other presidents to sign orders at will without living up to the constitution in full extent. In the words of Goldsmith, “the courts...remain supreme” (Goldsmith, 188). Additionally, agencies within the executive can be a check on the president. For example, when there were numerous reports that came out about Russia meddling in the election to help President Trump win, the Justice Department hired an outside special investigator, Robert Mueller, to find the underlying cause of the situation.
As was stated before it is widely known how dishonest politicians can be. If judges were to be appointed by an amoral governor the people could be left with a judge just as twisted. Many argue that the people are more aware of what goes on in daily life and how the law might affect the common people. But, many forget that our politicians reflect our choices. It makes sense that the leaders voters chose to represent them should be trusted to select our magistrates.
The United States is a constitutional republic with a representative democracy, the political system consists of three branches of government; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Supreme Court established under the Judiciary Act of 1789 is an integral part of America’s political system, which plays an important role in the checks and balances between the three branches of Government. The Supreme Court’s role in checks and balances was established following the case of Marbury vs. Madison, when the Supreme Court was granted the ability to perform Judicial Review. Over the last two centuries the Supreme Court has further evolved by becoming more involved with civil liberties and individual rights, as well as by changing the way the constitution
The system of checks and balances is meant to even power within the Federal Government, but within we know it has its flaws. The judiciary has the least power of them all it is meant to evaluate laws that have been challenged. Executive carries out laws whereas the legislative makes laws. The formation of interest groups and the actions taken by the public greatly impact the power of the judiciary branch as well. Alexander Hamilton 's Federalist NO. 78 paper describes the correct reasoning of as to why the judicial branch has the least power of all
Ultimately, the judicial branch has to go back to what the founding fathers intended for the court’s purpose and to use the power accordingly. To maintain the strength of the branch, the courts must think about what is constitutionally right. Their decisions should reflect the amendments as well. “Judicial power plays an important role in the rule of law, even while it comes frequently into tension with norms of democratic rule” (Friedman & Delaney, 2011, p. 57, para. 1). This is the only way that citizens will feel like their rights are truly protected.
If Rosenberg is correct, this does not mean that Hamilton’s argument that the Court is the “least dangerous branch” is also correct. Rosenberg’s view that courts can only produce significant social change given weak barriers and constraints does not by itself qualify Hamilton’s argument. There are other ways that the Court exerts influence in the political system other than promoting social change. There are three branches of government under the Constitution: (1) Executive, (2) Legislative, and (3) Judicial. The framers of the Constitution intended for the three branches to interact through a system of checks and balances, the mechanisms through which each branch is able to participate in and influence the activities of the other branches.
I would have to disagree with Mr. Hamilton because the Judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, is a powerful branch of the
A judge: a high-powered official who interprets regulations and puts them into play in a court of law. Every individual has different opinions on what characteristics a judge should have, but there are a few, basic traits that all judges should hold. In other words, these characteristics are what makes a good judge successful. A judge should be unbiased to make clear, fair decisions and be affirmative to represent authority in the court. Most importantly, a judge should have experience with law in order to possess knowledge of past rulings that will allow for a faster decision while sentencing.
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
Hana Kim Professor Yvonne Wollenberg Law and Politics 106 7 October 2015 Title In the United States government, there are three branches called the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Out of these three, the judicial branch is the most powerful. The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court, the court with the most power in the country, and other federal courts that are lower in the system; the purpose of this branch is to look over laws and make sure they are constitutional and reasonable.
To begin with, there are lots of ways The Constitution limits the power of the government. The most crucial method is, splitting government power into three separate branches; that way, one “elite” group doesn’t become corrupt with power. Henry Middleton once said, “There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” This quote conveys that the moment the three branches start overriding each other and ignore the fact that they have separated responsibilities, the liberty this government is founded on, will be in jeopardy. For instance,executive orders are a way that the executive branch enacts a policy.
Letting personal feelings into the court Politics in this world, especially the law is one of the most complicated item in this world. The law itself was created in order to reach a balance in solving problems that are happening, this is the reason why courts and judges was made with a main point to create a decision. However, chances are the some law rules that can be a double edged sword for the judges and people.
In other countries they do criticized the judiciary, even the judgment made by the court. In fact, they write books against certain judgments and this is not considered as disrespecting the judiciary. But in Malaysia we find that if a judge says something, you are not supposed to criticize what he says. He’s sort of superior being whose pronouncement must be accepted without question. In a way this is good because at some stage somebody
