This act defines a rule as "the whole or part of a statement of general or particular applicability and future even designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe legislation" Rule Handout. Before legislation can be implemented, the agencies create rules to help carry out legislation when legislation is fully developed, although no legislation is fully developed when it’s created. All legislation is flawed. This part of the political process by bureaucrats using discretion leads us away from the rational actor model into the arational actor model. In order to implement legislation, bureaucrats must create rules that can do one to three things: help a bureaucrat interpret, implement, or prescribe legislation.
Although the examination of the exclusionary rule may constitute deterrence for law enforcement, the rule still may be considered constitution although its existence (Zalman, M. (2011)). Rationale and Purpose of the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule is separated into three parts. The first part needs an item to be physically collected as evidence. The second part is that the item of evidence has been collected by a governmental officer or a person temporary acting in their behalf, for example; confidential informants. Confidential Informants are told to do acts or buy thing that may be illegal, but they are doing it on behalf of the government (Zalman, M. (2011)).
Discuss the extent to which judges do create and develop the law. Numerous different judges have different views on to what extent judges have creativity within the legal system, such as Lord Simons who believed he judges job is to administer justice according to legislation made my parliament and in common law old principles should be applied to new circumstances, therefore his view is that judges should not be creative, as it isn’t there job. On the contrary Lord Radcliffe believed that judges do create law, however felt it should be on the quiet, so the public don’t lose respect for the judiciary and legal system. Finally Lord Devlin opposed the overruling of the supreme court, as all lower courts are bound to it and that it would turn them into “undisguised legislators” which is the job of parliament, not of the judiciary. The traditional view of the law making process is that parliament makes the law though acts of parliament, as they are democratically elected to make law, whereas judges aren’t so they merely apply it in court to the cases presented to them.
The Congress is the official name and has its powers well elucidates in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. It has amongst other things, powers to collect taxes, regulate money value, set penalties in the case of counterfeiting, set up with inferior courts to the Supreme Court (federal courts), declare war, make laws that are necessary for the execution of its powers etc. The tasks are numerous, but are limited by the constitution especially concerning how the powers are to be executed. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have different roles to play within the government, a fact that ensures that there are no overlapping responsibilities (Bardes,
Some supporters say that a state should have more power than the federal government and then there are others who say the Federal government should be the ruling body alone. You have a central government that functions to keep the country working as a unit, but also works to keep the states from encroaching on individuals and becoming too intrusive. The same works for states. The states have a lot of control over what their citizens should be subject to. For example, criminal laws, property laws, contract laws...etc are decided by the state, not the federal government and they aren’t allowed to govern those areas.
Additionally, it exercises power independently to avoid conflicting with the other branches. The Judiciary, legislative and the executive are the commonly known branches of government and which the constitution ensures that they do not conflict but work together to unify the country (Amar 39). Checks and balances is another aspect that explains the view of a constitution as a living document. This idea ensures that there is no branch within the government acting as though it is the most supreme than others. In this case it provides protection to the minority from being exploited or manipulated by the majority.
However, both principles function under one principle which is checks and balances. The second part of the U.S. Constitution focuses on individual rights and liberties. However, we will only be discussing the first part of the Constitution in this essay. The framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted to prevent the concentration of power into the hands of one individual, or even one group of individuals, within the national government. In order to accomplish their goal they decided it was necessary to divide the governmental functions into three: legislative, judicial, and executive.
They created branches so they can all have control. Another way of creating equal power is a system of checks and balances. The three branches of government each have a way to limit the others powers. The President can check the Legislative Branch by vetoing a law. This means the President can reject a law.
The judicial branch must review the laws the executive branch is to enforce. There is also the legislative branch. This branch contains the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and the Library of Congress. Laws are created through the legislative branch. The basic idea between the creations of the three branches is based upon “checks and balances.” No branch should become so powerful that it over-takes either of the other branches.
On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, as in many others, Judicial Activism is just an excuse for justices to rule based on personal opinion. The judicial branch of the government needs to show judicial restraint because of the variety of the cases they receive. They need to make sure that the rulings they enact are rulings that follow the constitution and not their own personal beliefs as they have been doing for some time now. In my opinion, the most important example of judicial restraint being in need in American history occurred on May 20, 1940.