Article III of the US Constitution establishes the judiciary branch - the Supreme Court. Although the US Constitution includes democratic principles such as checks and balances and the separation of powers to ensure the equal balance of power amongst the government branches, the legislative branch was designed to be most powerful. The organization and qualifications of Congress also contribute to the democratic shortcomings of the US Constitution. One of the biggest of these government decisions is electing the president, for which the system of the electoral college is in place. The US Constitution did not abolish slavery, and an interesting guarantee regarding slavery was included in Article IV of the Constitution.
Simpson case. Although the rights of freedom of press and speech are protected by the constitution, it was up to the Supreme Court to dictate if all types of media expression should be available to the public. The Miranda v Arizona case led to the creation of “Miranda Right” which provide defendants with the rights to counsel upon arrest. This decision corroborate the fifth amendment. When Mr. Miranda was arrested, it was common in many states, criminals (or accused criminals) were being interrogated for hours or even days without being informed of their right to an attorney.
He thought that the government would be given too much power. His thoughts on the injustices in the Constitution greatly influenced the making of the Bill of Rights. At the time, Federalists argued that the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights, due to the fact that the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government, but Anti-Federalists said that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. So when the Bill of Rights was made it listed prohibitions on governmental power and the rights that were granted to people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution it was became the fundamental rights of all citizens in 1791.
* Civil Rights: Immigration and Naturalization * The Supreme Court of the United States is one of the most, if not the most powerful institution in this country. This being said, it would be normal to ask ourselves if they use their power wisely and with equality. In my personal opinion the Supreme Court uses their authority wisely, trying to stick to what they think and interpret from constitution in terms of the civil rights, this paper will discuss three cases supporting my case. * I first thought that the Supreme Court would always use its power in order to go against immigrants when the cases were presented, this has a lot to do with the prejudice and more importantly the historical past between the United States and Latin America, specifically my country, the Dominican Republic. While I was growing up I would always hear people saying how unfair the United States was with our people in terms of naturalization, the jobs that were given, and the discrimination they were facing while they were here years ago.
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.
The Supreme Court role is important in the United states system of government. The Constitution is the main source that gives it the power to check the actions of the President and Congress. The Supreme Court is the one who is responsible for interpreting the U.S Constitution and to ensure that any federal and state law abide by the constitution. The drafters of the Constitution ensured the protection of it by creating a balance of powers among the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. They are very important to balance the powers between each other but at times it can become very difficult to maintain it because they each have boundaries.
The Supreme Court recognized that Judicial Review must also be cultivated into Judicial Sovereignty; the idea that a law may be held unconstitutional and binding on the other branches. The nation-state relationship served as the greatest obstacle for the Supreme Court in preserving the Union. In order to preserve the American Union the Supreme Court steered the cases, of the period, in order to create a consolidated nation-state. Preserving the American Union is reflected in all decisions of the cases the cases that fallow. In the case Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court invalidated a law, passed by Congress, by declaring an act unconstitutional for the first time.
I believe that Marshall granted this case cert. because there was a potential loophole in the Constitution regarding powers granted to the state and to Congress that both Gibbons and Ogden tried to play in their favor. Marshall saw this, and gave his interpretation of it, asserting that essentially, the federal government gets the benefit of the doubt. At the time, although it may have seemed like a not-so-important case, it was very revolutionary. John Marshall’s Supreme Court’s ruling provided a broader interpretation of the power mandated to Congress: “If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress,
One of the reasons given against King George of England for the American Revolution was that he refused to allow the American Colonies the benefits of jury trial. The ideal purpose of a jury trial is that an accused person is given the opportunity to convince a group of his or her peers regarding his or her innocence. So, the same values that the accused cherishes are held by the jurors. Katz states that the
Some say that it was nothing more than an inconclusive political confrontation. It did not change the law of seditious libel or the English definition of freedom of the press. They also say that it did not directly enhance the development of political liberty or of free press in America. Others argue that the Zenger Affair was an extremely important case in the history of New York. They say that even though it didn’t change the actual law of seditious libel, it was an important step in establishing the principle of freedom of the press and it represented the legitimacy of opposition to the government.