What Good is Assimilation? “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.” Mr. Obama emphasized his concern that the intact Arizona’s immigration law, “show me your papers”, could lead to racial profiling on June25, 2012 after announcing the Supreme Court’s decision. Immigration is one of the highly controversial issues in the U.S. Some people claim that immigrant assimilation is not occurring and that instead most immigrants are a burden on in the U.S. society. However, before the society requires assimilation and criticized the lack of immigrant assimilation into the U.S., any requirement for assimilating should be based on the true understanding of immigrants.
After all, genocide was already forbidden under customary international law at the time that the Aboriginals Ordinance was enacted. The court, however, found difficulty here as well, this time based on problems inherent in the definition of genocide as a crime. According to the court, the transfer that the Aboriginals Ordinance authorized lacked the requisite mental element of "intent to destroy" the children's racial or ethnic group. Rather, the court held that the forcible transfers authorized by the Ordinance were intended "for the good and welfare" of the aboriginal population. The court based this interpretation on the conditions that prevailed at the time of the Ordinance's passage.
He uses several facts in history that are irrefutable to showcase the many extreme lengths at which certain Justices will go for the sole purpose of furthering their own goals. However, on rare occasion he focuses on the Constitutionally trustworthy Justices and their court decisions that have shaped our wonderful nation. Just as there are Justices that have twisted the Constitution to suit their deranged views, there is an equal amount that have shown common sense, and morality in their interpretations of the law. The problem noted in his book is that there are tools set in place for the removal of Supreme Court Justices that have obviously lost their way and warrant such actions however this has not been exercised to the extent that is needed. Article II, Section four of the Constitution provides for the removal of many things to include civil officers such as judges (Levin, 2005).
The Founders of the Constitution wanted to create a strong central government but were concern about it having unlimited power as they new it could be dangerous. As James Madison wrote, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition” (1). Once the Constitution was complete it was a government with three branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) that were independent of each other but which had checks and balance over the action of the others. In this essay, we will see how Bush has attempted to fight terrorism and some of the checks and balances of the Judicial and Legislative branches that were for and against his policy. On September 11, in 2001, four planes were hijacked by Al Qaeda terrorists and were then used as human missiles again US targets.
The Court is supposed to pass judgement on matters concerning the constitution and their decisions can be of up most significance because a judgment made in a case then affects the whole country. The method by which the Court exercises its power is by Judicial Review. The strength of the Supreme Court is essential in protecting civil liberties that are protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also increased its power through court cases and through judicial revolutions. One case that has significantly altered the power that the Supreme Court is able to exert was Marbury v Madison 1803.
Erik Hansen The judicial branch... the ones who really sit on top In the United States we are supposed to have a government with three equal branches to it that share the same amount of power to be used to keep each other in balance. It is hard to tell if that is actually the case though. Most would think that the president, since they are always in public eye, holds the most power. Congress has is also often in the public eye, with cspan, and elections, but the Supreme Court judges are simply appointed to a life long position unless they do something outrages. There would need to be a lot of checks in order to balance this major power supply.
Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), was a significant case that illustrates the fine line the federal government walks when trying to protect the privacy of Americans while also trying to uphold Constitutional law. This case made the possession and use of birth control pills illegal. However, the Supreme Court also felt that illegalizing birth control pills would also strip many Americans of their right to privacy because in order to enforce the law the government would have to appear “in bedrooms to find out what went on” (Bartee, 2006). This case would eventually lead to the legalization of birth control pills so that the federal and state governments would no longer be permitted to gain access to the reproductive information and family choices that American citizens made (Bartee,
Abstract Equal treatment has often been the topic of discussion in the criminal process. Although the courts have made an abundance of progress reassuring that all American citizens are treated as first class citizens, they continuously have been challenged with getting some of their personnel to buy into their philosophy of “Equal Justice Perspective.” The textbook defines the Equal Justice Perspective as “a perspective on criminal justice based on the idea that all people should receive the same treatment under the law and should be evaluated on the basis of their current behavior, not on what they have done in the past” (Siegel et al. p.30). Unfortunately, some individuals who are expected to uphold the law have made it difficult for certain
The strangest aspect of America’s immigration debate is the intense opposition among right-wing hardliners to allowing more immigrants into the country. Most opposition to illegal immigrants stems from an admirable respect for the law, but there is a curious belief among the far right that being on the wrong side of the border—purely through an accident of birth—makes you undeserving of equal rights. They wish to deny citizenship to those who are willing to work for it, when they themselves acquired it through no effort save that of having been born on the right side of the border. These same people, curiously enough, are also of the following opinions: no one is entitled to anything, people who work harder than others deserve more, and the economy should be free from government regulation. This much the amusingly named teabaggers have made clear in hundreds of “tea parties” organized to protest government policies they view as “socialistic”.
Enforcement of immigration laws Name Institution Introduction There are many conflicting views about who should enforce immigration laws. The various law enforcers are the national, state and local governments or authorities. Enforcement of immigration laws has previously been the preserve of the federal government. It was thought to be the best placed institution that can ensure national security. Discussion Immigration laws need to be enforced at all levels of government.