Has no immunity for acts that occurred prior to becoming president and can be sued while in office. PART IV. FEDERALISM I. THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article IV Valid federal law overrides inconsistent state law. o Includes constitution, statutes, treaties, admin rules etc.
Martin Luther argued that the charter was not “a republican form of government” and all acts thus far are not binding. The question was whether or not the Court had the authority to declare which policy could be called the government of Rhode Island. The Court held that the federal courts did not have the authority nor is it the courts function to decide “political” matters; it is the responsibility of the President and Congress. Another example is how Chief Justice Roberts upheld the Constitutionality of ObamaCare. He contended that the health insurance mandate was lawful under Congress’ power to “lay and collect taxes.” Roberts said that “the text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning” and the “the government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax.” In contrast to Judicial restraint, Judicial activism is the idea that judges should actively interpret the Constitution and make policy decisions in new ways.
The Executive Branch, which includes the president, is in charge of enforcing laws, the Legislative Branch controls making laws, and the Judicial Branch is a system of courts that interpret the laws created and enforced by the other branches. Hamilton stated as opposed to the Executive and Legislative branches of government, “...[The Judicial Branch] has no influence over the sword or the purse;” (Federalist #78) Because the Executive branch has the power to enforce law and the Legislative branch has the power to declare war and make laws, Hamilton argues that the Judicial branch is the least dangerous. Although I believe the Judicial branch has many positive aspects, I agree with Hamilton’s argument
2. What are the differences between the two? Basically, Judicial Activism means that judges use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. Judicial Restraint means that judges do not use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. 3.
Thus meaning congress may not create power but must follow its own laws given to it by its people. Another principle is separation of powers as stated earlier the US government is divided into three branches so that no one branch has all the power. Each branch has its own purpose: to make the laws, execute the laws and to interpret the
Conduct diplomacy 4. States couldn’t make currency, interfere with contracts/debts, or tax interstate commerce 5. All states had to uphold the Constitution 6. Established separation of powers between executive, judicial, legislative 7. Established checks and balances, which prevented one branch having more power than the others 8.
Neither branch federal nor state can oversee functions reserved for the other branches. Both federal and state may exercise only judicial powers and perform only judicial functions, also judges may only decide on cases seen by them. Federal courts can decide cases involving the U.S government, conflicts between states or between the U.S and foreign government or disputes under federal law. The case has to raise a federal question in order to be heard in federal court. Powers given to U.S Congress Article 1,
Separation of Powers is the division of power between the three branches of government- legislative, executive, and judicial. Baron de Montesquieu believed that no one branch of government should have too much power. When congress passes a law, the Supreme Court declares it constitutional or unconstitutional. The Constitution separates the powers among the three branches so no one person or group can control the government. The power is distinct, but
As Supreme Court justices, they only accept a case that directly has to deal with someone's right from the constitution being violated. Because it has to deal with interpreting the Constitution, the scope of their powers are limited and clearly defined as law interpreters, not law makers. b. One factor
The Supreme Court's power of judicial review should be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment and except as authorized by Congress, no court of the United States or of any individual state shall have the power to review the constitutionality of statutes enacted by Congress or by state legislatures,(Tushnet, 2005). An example is Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia, were each defined their personal philosophy to how they decide to hear cases. Justice Breyer believes the Constitution is a "living document" which adheres to the Founders' "values" but changes to society and technology must be considered. In contrast, Justice Scalia said he is not fit to judge the values of the current American public. By not