Reasoning: The section of the Judiciary Act of 1792 (passed by Congress) relied on by Marbury which granted the Supreme Court the right to issue writs of mandamus to government officials was unconstitutional and therefore is void and of no effect. The Constitution only gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases “affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” It is the duty of the Court to
I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and economist, proclaimed "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation”. The Articles of Confederation which gave rise to the Confederation government that took effect in March 1781, did not give the national government any means to enforce the federal laws. The states could, and often did, choose to interpret or enforce federal laws in any manner they saw fit. This led to disputes amongst the states that could not be readily settled, as it relied on each state’s court system which invariably chose to discount the ruling of the other states.
The thirteen states had to make some ratification of it and that didn’t occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles of Confederation produce a loose confederation of sovereign states and also weakening the central government. With that all of the power were left with the state governments. Some of the strength that the Article of Confederation had was to declare war and make peace, to coin and borrow money, to talk with foreign countries and sign treaties, and also to operate offices. The weaknesses were greater than the strength, the National government couldn’t force the state to obey its law which means that the states was pretty much running wild.
And the finally precedent in this case is Article II of the U.S. Constitution because this is where it states that a single President responsible for the actions of the Executive Branch as a whole. 5) There is no “official” action that is being challenged. Paula Jones simply wants to be able to sue President Clinton without having to wait until the end of his term 6) At issue is weather or not the separation of powers or the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from a court of law. 7) For a separation of powers reason, is a serving President entitled to immunity from civil litigation that came from events that happened before he took office?
The case began as John Adams tried to appoint a court full of federalist judges as his term ended before he handed the presidency over to Democratic-Republican, Thomas Jefferson. All of the processes did not get completed before Jefferson took office and he had his party put a halt put on the proceedings. There was a court case saying that this was unconstitutional. But the question that remained was what power and authority the court had to rule on this case. This case ultimately decided whether the Supreme Court had the power to decide whether the decisions of the other branches were unconstitutional.
He does not believe that the Iroquois League was a major factor in how the Constitution came to be. In his essay, “The Iroquois League, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution”, he argues that American colonies had introduced these ideas of freedoms and rights independent of the influence of the Iroquois. He believes these ideas originated from the Old World values from Europe. He gives the example that the colony New England had created a confederation in 1643 which was well before diplomatic relations were ever made with the Iroquois. Payne instead supports the idea that the colonists looked to European experience of confederations instead.
In order to understand the implications of instituting a nationwide ban on firearms, one must understand the past, consider the actions of the present and predict the outcomes of the future. In 1791, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution was ratified and stated that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This statement has been debated for the past few decades by legal experts and ban activists with fairly little action due to the Supreme Court’s interpretation that it protects an individual's right to have guns rather than that of an organized para-military force. Proponents of the Second Amendment, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the right to bear arms is a freedom similar to other freedoms granted under the Bill of Rights, like free speech and press. Because of this, gun rights advocates protest individual state laws by citing the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
[What is the opposite of freedom? They thought Congress/Speaker of House would dominate] - Section 2 & 3 deal with the House and Senate respectively - Section 8 = most important passage in Article 1 (*Third one down) - 17 short paragraphs about what Congress may do: “power to lay and collect taxes,” declare war, regulate interstate commerce, coin money and raise an army. - Final paragraph known as the necessary and proper clause [Allowed Congress to expand their power] - Section 9 lists the things Congress may not do - Habeas Corpus – Gov’t can’t hold prisoners without charging them with a crime. - No title of nobility can be granted. Article II: President [Article that has been stretched out.
BILL OF RIGHTS & AMENDMENTS Our forefathers never intended for the Constitution to be finished nor untouched. Article V of the Constitution, describes the process in the event and amendment is proposed and therefore creating the possibility of altering or ratifying the Constitution. The ratification process requires only one step, ratification of 3/4 of the states. Congress can write an amendment and pass it with 2/3 approval of congress, but it still needs 3/4 ratification of the states. According to "Ratification" (2012), “it is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal.
It can further be separated into codified and uncodified. An uncodified constitution is a constitution which has not been written down in a single document in an organised form. An uncodified constitution is partly written and unwritten but cannot be found in a single form. For example the UK has an uncodified constitution, the constitution cannot be found in a single form. Uncodified constitutions tend not to be entrenched therefore short term amendments can be made which might have negative impacts on citizens.