The 15th Amendment has been used to protect the voting rights of minorities from being diluted either explicitly or through more circuitous means (U.S. History.Org, 1995-2011). Second, the 14th Amendment has been used to incorporate the Bill of Rights, making it apply to the states as well as to the federal government. Until the early 1900s, the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Over time, the Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment to require states to abide by the Bill of Rights as well (U.S. History.Org, 1995-2011). In conclusion, this paper discussed how and why the amendments became apart of the constitution, what problems motivated the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the effects of the Bill of Rights, what problems or changes in society led to later amendments, discuss the 13th through 15th amendments, and the
Lincoln’s Abuse of the Presidential Power and why he suspended The Writ Habeas Corpus Joyce Dolford Pol 201: American National Government Instructor Teri Kuffel 11/24/2012 Lincoln’s Abuse of the Presidential Power and why he suspended the Writ Habeas Corpus Abraham Lincoln was the first 16th President of the United States serving from March 1861 until he was assassinated in April 1865. Abraham Lincoln led his country through it greatest Constitutional, Military and moral crisis. What is Habeas Corpus? Habeas Corpus is considered a cornerstone of due process of law. It means That a person cannot be detained unless they are brought in person before the court so that the court can determine whether or not the person is being lawfully held.
Explain the factors that limit the power of the Supreme Court (15 Marks) The Supreme Court has many checks on it to avoid any tyranny as the founding fathers had wanted; this was through checks like the Senate being able to reject nominations of judges, Impeachment and no initiation power. Upon the death or retirement of a judge the president has the task of nominating someone to replace them, to avoid the president nominating someone who largely has similar views as them or overloading a court with conservative or liberal judges after previous appointments the Senate will review the nominations and if they are unhappy with it then it will be rejected and a new nomination must be made, this stops any court from having too much of a political leaning and makes it completely impartial avoiding any tyranny Judges always have the possibility of impeachment as well, although this has never happened to a supreme court justice it did almost happen in 1969 to justice Abe Fortas, who resigned before he could be impeached to avoid having this record to his name. In this justices are always accountable to any scandals or wrong doing within the court meaning they must act in line with what is expected of them. The supreme court has no initiation power, they cannot decide to create a case and review it themselves, they must wait until a case is brought to them before acting upon it, with this balance in place they cannot select a certain area of the Constitution to try and influence an amendment or choose to pass a law without the public wishes. Overall there are several ways the Supreme Court has its power limited, this is through the Senate rejecting nominations, the possibility of impeachment of all justices and the fact that the Court has no initiation power.
Charmaine English 101 Professor Clara Blenis 12 February 2015 “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” Pg. 82 Question#1 This essay challenges my assumptions on about conservative perspectives on marriage equality by fighting for it first off. I was so shocked to read the writers arguments about why banding same-sex marriages goes against everything America stands for. Conservatives are quick to say they have nothing wrong with same-sex couples. Then turn around a make prop 8 that tells them they are not worthy of the same rights they have.
Wills’ claims that the federal government's chief law enforcement official might need a refresher course on federal law pertaining to legal immigrants. Some American legislators have taken up the position that prohibiting bilingual ballots would be racist. However, evidence shows that millions of other American citizens feel that prohibiting the bilingual ballot is a step in the right direction. Wills’ begins his article with a political anecdote quoted by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. When he was asked whether he would favor the prohibition of the bilingual ballot, he simply stated, “Of course not.” Wills’ continues in the next section stating that our national identity and our federal laws are being weakened by immigration that is influenced by these bilingual ballots.
Should Proposition 26 have been passed? Last week, the state of Mississippi cast their votes on amendment 26, more commonly known as “The Personhood Amendment.” If passed, this amendment would have changed the definition of a ‘person’, giving rights to the unborn from the moment of conception. In addition to that, the amendment would have outlawed abortion, certain forms of birth control, the ‘morning after’ pill, and would have restricted in vitro fertilization to the point of being banned. Should it have been passed? Because of its encroachment of women’s rights, and its general vagueness, I could not be more against it, and I am glad that enough voters agreed with me.
Casey charted a new path for abortion regulation in the United States. It displaced the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services as the reigning judicial exposition of the constitutional status of abortion and the power of the government to restrict it. Roe v. Wade had seemed on the brink of extinction after Webster. Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. and Thru good Marshall, two of the four justices in Webster who had voted to adhere to Roe, had resigned. They had been replaced by Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas, both of whom had dodged heavy questioning on Roe v. Wade in their confirmation hearings.
a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” Unfortunately like many others, this promise is bound to broken. It has been introduced to Congress often since the early 1990’s. Recently, two bills have been designed to be passed for this issue, one by Representative Barney Frank and another by Senator Jeff Merkley. Both bills are still in the committee showing no means of progressing any further. Another factor keeping the probability of this bill being passed minimal is the Republican Party’s control over the United States House of Representatives and that this bill is not one of the Republican Party’s priorities at the moment.
People post things on the internet every day. They post everything from their hobbies to their favorite foods and even where they are going to be and at what times. Now with things like the Patriot Act in place they believe they are being targeted by the government and their freedom of speech rights have been violated. . According to O’Connor (2009) “The USA Patriot Act, for example, violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees by barring those who have been subject to search orders from telling anyone about those orders, even in situations where no need for secrecy can be proven.
The Act was ruled unconstitutional because it requires federal estate tax to be paid by folks in same-sex marriages. Currently if the spouse in an opposite-sex marriage dies, no federal estate tax needs to be paid. The court also stated that the Act discriminates based on sexual orientation and violates equal protection under the Constitution. Republicans are contesting a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates based on the denial of health benefits to same-sex spouses. In defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans claim the goals are to “maintain consistency in allocating federal benefits and encourage relationships “that most frequently result in the begetting and raising of children.”” NYTIMES.