A lot of magistrates go beyond the constitution and statutes words and use their own political and personal thoughts. Judicial Restraint is the complete opposite of Judicial Activism. The judges should not introduce or instill their own personal or political beliefs into the law. The power and decision of the judges on a verdict should be strictly follow the law and US Constitution. 2.
As of June 28 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that basically if a person doesn’t buy health insurance then the fee is counted as a tax. The Obama administration tried to argue against the ruling stating that the fee should just count as a penalty instead of a tax. The Supreme Court didn’t agree with the Obama Administration so they turned the decision down. Chief Justice John Roberts believes that the payment of health insurance is not that high so it should be no choice but to get it. Also the payments are collected by the IRS through taxation.
Each of my arguments revolves around the idea that the British were unfair towards their treatment of the colonists, which compels me to justify the Colonists quarrel against the British. My first argument states that there were no representatives in Parliament. The Colonists refers strictly to the British who moved to the New World, in Daniel Dulany considerations it states that “a tax imposed by Parliament, is a tax with out [the Colonists’] consent” (October 1765) Therefore, no Colonist represented Parliament because all the Colonists were in the New World. However, Jenyns’ rebuttal states “Parliament may have the power to impose taxes on the Colonies [but] they have no right to use it, beause it would be an unjust tax” (1765). I do not think this qualifies as a just statement because Parliament only composed of British representatives, and no Colonist representatives, therefore, no Colonist could back up their viewpoint or dispute any taxes enforced, only the British would have say in what would be a just or unjust tax.
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.
Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises. Firstly, Martin supports his claim by making a point that judges, as they hold no accountability for what their judgments, can “overturn deliberate policy decisions made by the elected representatives of the people where those decisions do not accord with the way the judges interpret the Charter.” Thus, the Charter, according to Martin, is antidemocratic. Secondly, Martin discerns the differences between liberalism and democracy, creating operational definitions for each. He explains that liberalism “is about individual rights,” and is “about the ability of individuals to do as they please without interference from the state.” Therefore, according to Martin, Liberalism “makes protection of the autonomy of the individual more important than the promotion of the welfare of the
Furthermore, neither the Prime Minister, nor the cabinet signs a bill once it has been passed; rather the Governor General signs the bill. The parliamentary bill to law process is superior to that of the congressional process, because the American system, creates inefficiencies due to the all or nothing veto which the President has. Furthermore, this all or nothing veto system; creates what is called Omnibus legislation. Which is where several bills are bundled together; therefore, if the President really wants a bill to pass he or she may have to also accept a number of unrelated bills. Essentially, a President may be enacting a bill into a law, for which they know nothing about.
Jefferson’s main argument on the unconstitutionality of the Alien and Sedition act were that they both violated the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (document 31). Jefferson had proposed that through the Constitution, it expressly declared that congress shall make no law…of the press (document 31) stating that any law the Congress passes to abridge the freedom of speech and press could no be considered a forceful law and instead by voided. Jefferson opposed the Alien acts through his fifth resolution in the Kentucky Resolustion: he argues that any individual who migrates from any state shall have proper rights to admit and would not be prohibited by the Congress prior to year 1808.
Madison which was in 1803. Secretary of state, James Madison held up one of John Adam’s “Midnight Judges” appointments; he was wrong to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia. Marbury sued and never received his job. However, it also ruled that the court had no jurisdiction in the case and could not force Jefferson and Madison to seat Marbury. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction, but the Marshall court ruled the Act of 1789 to be an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive.
Examination of previous national emergencies provides evidence of what prior governments viewed as normative. Dictatorships were not established during the extreme emergencies of the Revolution and the War of 1812 . If "emergency powers" are Constitutional and a "longstanding feature of American law", it is altogether unusual that Washington and Madison did not insist that Congress implement
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