... The third and final branch of the United States government is the judicial branch. Please note that there are separate state courts and federal courts, and that we will be discussing only federal courts. This branch is headed...
Words: 975 - Pages: 4
...federal laws monitor all behavior set within an organization. There has to be an understanding of law by learning it, common knowledge, upbringing, and from society as a whole understanding the consequences of its actions. State and Federal courts have very different structures. According to "United States Courts" (2014), " The state court system use the Constitution and laws of each state to establish the state court with the Supreme Court being the highest court, state courts have courts that handle specific matters, if a decision is made and the parties are dissatisfied they may take their case to the Court of Appeals, parties have the option to ask the highest state court to hear the case, only certain cases are eligible for review by U.S. Supreme Court. The Federal Court System invest the judicial power of the United States in the federal court meaning it specifically creates the U.S. Supreme Court and gives Congress the authority to create the lower federal courts. Congress has used this power to establish the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, the 94 U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. U.S. Bankruptcy Courts handle bankruptcy cases. Magistrate Judges handle some District Court matters. Parties dissatisfied with a decision of a U.S. District Court, the U.S. Court of Claims, and/or the U.S. Court of International Trade may appeal to a U.S....
Words: 758 - Pages: 4
...Judges Our system of government is a system that relies on balance in order to prevent a concentration of power and is arguably the most powerful. With its ability to declare both executive and legislative actions unconstitutionally, the judicial branch has a lot of space in determining the final say on whether or not our country can or cannot do a particular thing. This power requires that the judicial branch has effective judges in order to work properly. All judges carry an enormous amount of responsibility. In criminal trials, they are responsible for making sure that the lawyers follow all of the rules of evidence, and ensure that defendants get every right that is afforded to them. They make sure that everything is fair and that the jury is given adequate information in order to decide the guilt or innocence of a party. In civil trials, the judges must decide hard cases by interpreting precedent and decide which policy would be best where the law is not exactly clear on a subject. Judges are responsible for many tasks within the courtroom. The most important responsibility of a judge is to take the oath of office and to uphold that oath. They must swear that they will do their best to ensure that all official duties within their capacity are successfully executed. Judges are somewhat like referees during trials as well as sentencing agents during criminal cases. Judges are also...
Words: 812 - Pages: 4
...The Supreme Court and Judicial Review Should the Supreme Court's power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment? Yes, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review should be strictly limited to the constitution; because their judicial power is in all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution. Meaning they are over stepping their initial jurisdiction and have been given the power to have judicial reviews, even though it’s unconstitutional. The only power the Supreme Court is supposed to have is; all cases affecting ambassadors, or the public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party in the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction as stated in article III section 2 of the constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The legislative, and executive branches are supposed to control the judiciary branch, even the states are supposed to have more say than the court. But they have been made more powerful and they are telling the legislative and executive branches what to do. There is no such system of checks and balances any more that protect the states and people when most government branches, are acting in cohorts with one another, eroding and destroying the rights and powers of the states and we the people. Even if the system was working right; who is watching and how will they stop the court from being unconstitutional? Every time the court holds judicial...
Words: 610 - Pages: 3
...how our country operates. For example, it contains the powers of the federal government and those of the provincial governments in Canada Importance The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. Generally speaking, all other laws must be consistent with the rules set out in the Constitution. If they are not, they may not be valid. Since the Charter is part of the Constitution, laws that limit Charter rights may be invalid. This makes the Charter the most important law we have in Canada. It is important to point out, however, that the Charter itself allows governments to put some limits on Charter rights. Section 1 of the Charter says that other laws may limit the rights and freedoms in the Charter so long as those laws are reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society. So, a law that limits a Charter right is nevertheless valid if it conforms with section 1. The fact that the Charter is part of the Constitution also means that governments must try to make sure that new laws are consistent with it. For example, the federal Department of Justice must make sure that new laws proposed by the federal government comply with the Charter....
Words: 1393 - Pages: 6
...general definition of politics would be the process by which values are authoritatively allocated for a particular society. More specifically that allocation speaks to the process where it is decided when, what, who, and how resources are distributed. Many would say that politics is no more than the art of governing humanity through deception, and some would even go as far as to say it is nothing more than conducting public affairs for private gain. Government has numerous roles but four of the major areas are paramount. Manage the national economy. It is the responsibility of the government to place checks and balances within the system to make sure the economy remains viable. The government also has the responsibility to enforce laws and contracts. This could be as simple as managing disputes between private citizens (civil or criminal) or as major as the Supreme Court hearing arguments between the states. Another major area where government is involved are issues of public safety and infrastructure. The upkeep of roads and bridges, regulation of utilities and public services, and public health standard guidelines are roles of the government. One of the most obvious and expensive roles of the government is national defense. The Constitution speaks to the issue of raising an army and navy (doesn’t say exactly how) and it is the expectation of the people that the government will provide for them an adequate defense. 2. There are effectively five types of power...
Words: 2564 - Pages: 11
...evidence to support his credibility. Under the United States Constitution, “ the evidence is subject to reasonable restrictions to accommodate legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.”The respondent, an airman stationed at an air force base in California, failed to show up for duty on April 30. He remained off duty until May 13, when he was later arrested during a traffic stop and was returning to the base. His pee sample revealed the presence of methamphetamine . He was tried by a court named the general court-martial on charges of having methamphetamine in his system, failing to go to...
Words: 572 - Pages: 3
...At the arraignment, White pleaded not guilty to the charges in the indictment. After a hearing and following a denial of her pretrial motion to suppress, White entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charges, clearly preserving the right to raise, on appeal, the matter of the trial court's denial of her suppression motion. [5] The Court sentenced White to two years in prison. The ruling was suspended, and she was placed on two years’ probation. On appeal, Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama reversed and reduced White's conviction on April 28, 1989. The Court held that a confirmed anonymous tip which involved easily known details was insufficient to validate an investigatory stop of a defendant. [6] Rehearing was denied by the appellate court on June 16, 1989. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari without opinion on September 22, 1989, with two Justices dissenting. The Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and remanded for further proceedings because when the officers stopped White, the anonymous tip from the informant had been effectively confirmed to furnish reasonable suspicion that White was involved in criminal activity. [7] The investigative stop the officers conducted did not violate White’s Fourth Amendment...
Words: 1241 - Pages: 5
...The issue of U.S. justices serving in the Supreme Court for life has been debated for years. While our forefathers who crafted the constitution had reasons for the lifetime service, Americans have had varying positions regarding the issue. This essay discusses the two sides of the lifetime tenure of American justices serving in the Supreme Court, seeking to gain ground on whether the term should be retained or amended. The U.S. President is constitutionally allowed to appoint justices to serve in the country’s Supreme Court. However, he or she does not do this independently, but seeks the assent and counsel of the Senate before the justices are appointed. From history, most presidents give preference to judges who appear to rhyme with them in terms of ideological views. However, this does not rule out the fact that serving justices may have opposing opinions to those shared by the president. Importantly, there are no qualifications for justices defined by the constitution, leaving room for the president to make his appointments, which are confirmed by the Senate (Patterson, 2010). Nevertheless, the confirmation process has always drawn significant attention, with lobby groups pushing for the rejection of some candidates with questionable track records. In rare cases, the president is allowed to withdraw the names of some candidates, especially when he is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the names are likely to be rejected by the Senate. In recent years, the approval...
Words: 1572 - Pages: 7
...Kalie Kollmar ENG 3003 Professor Dale Ireland Essay 1 July 19, 2015 Is Your Hotel Information Safe? Checking into a hotel requires giving the hotel your personal information including name, address, phone number, and credit card. But is this information that you give them protected? Caroline Levander and Matthew Pratt Guterl use two modes of persuasion in their article, Are Hotels Dangerous?, to interest or appeal to the reader, those being pathos and logos. Levander and Guteral use pathos to relate to their readers that have stayed in hotel rooms; and logos by supporting their statements with facts. Such as, when they report that in a Supreme Court decision invalidated an ordinance that requires owners of a hotel to give law officials patron information without a warrant. They do not, however, use ethos effectively because there is not efficient credibility from the authors. Levander and Guterl do not use ethos, but successfully use pathos and logos to convince the readers that hotels are more unsafe than guests realize because police can access patrons information without a reasonable cause. Ethos refers to the credibility of a writer. Neither Levander nor Guterl, are experts or workers in the hospitality field. There is no background information about the writer that would lead the reader to trust the information that they are providing. Even though large amounts of information were provided in their Are Hotels Dangerous? article, they cannot personally...
Words: 1126 - Pages: 5
...Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights are void.The Supreme Court (Under Article 32) and the High Courts (Under Article 226) are empowered to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights against any authority of the State. Article 12 has defined "State" to include the Government and Parliament of India, and the Government and Legislature of the States, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The expression, "other authorities" has been interpreted to cover citizens,business organizations and therefore such organisations also are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the courts.A proceeding under Article 32 is described as a constitutional remedy and the right to bring such proceedings before the Supreme Court is itself a fundamental right. Article 139 confers the Supreme Court the powers to issue the below 5 writs. 1. What is Habeas corpus writ Habeas corpus literally means ‘you may have the body'. It is the most valuable writ for personal liberty. It is a remedy available to a person who is confined without legal justification. Through this writ, the court let it know the reasons for detention of the person and if there is no justification, order the authority concerned to set the person free. The writ of hebeas corpus, thus, entails the authority to produce the person before the court. The applicant of this writ may be the prisoner...
Words: 1374 - Pages: 6
...Did you know that a president resigned because he was scared of being impeached? This happened in the court case of the United States vs Nixon when President Richard Nixon resigned because of his paranoia of being impeached from his scandalous behavior. After the court case of the United States vs Nixon, there was a decrease in the executive privilege because Nixon greatly abused his authority. So how was the Supreme Court put into action? It was all thanks to the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention was a meeting with fifty-five delegates from twelve out of thirteen colonies to make a government and rules that suited all the colonies. This took place between May 27th and September 17th, 1780 in Philadelphia. There was...
Words: 1503 - Pages: 7
...limited government which would essentially help to avoid tyranny and protect the liberty of citizens. Neustradt stated that it was the institutions that are separate and not the powers. If the branches were totally separate, power would be difficult to exercise especially with the use of checks and balances. Instead there is a separation of personnel, where not one member of one branch can work within another branch. So all in all, the US government created a doctrine of ‘shared powers’, where checks and balances are needed. Madison agreed with this, and said: ‘you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself’. Some of the checks and balances include: the president checking congress by presidential veto; the presidential veto is checked by congressional override; the supreme court uses judicial review to decide whether legislation or actions are unconstitutional; presidential appointments are confirmed, and treaties ratified by the Senate; and finally the president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but only congress can declare war. Checks and balances are needed alongside the separation of powers. Checks and balances are essential for the scrutiny of the three branches of government, however they come with some disadvantages. There is often a divided house within government which subsequently results in gridlock when passing legislation or when each branch exercises their powers. It is not...
Words: 1064 - Pages: 5
...Secondly is that the laws are clear for all and fundamental rights are upheld e.g. the right to reproduce. Thirdly is the process by which the laws are enacted, administered and enforced is accessible and efficient. And finally someone who is impartial and neutral in the decision-making aspect must deliver justice in an acceptable time frame. (b) With reference to the source and your own knowledge, explain how the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed process by. In theory the Judiciary should be independent from the government since it is its own pillar in society. In the coming years the independence of the judiciary has been cemented. This is partly due to the constitutional reform act as shown in the extract, now the Lord Chancellor is guaranteed independence from the Lord chief justice. The Lord Chancellor had to swear an oath to defend the independence of the Judiciary. Another important step to independence of the Judiciary was achieved by the erection of the Supreme Court in 2009, which moved powers further away from the government in the way they could manipulate the courts i.e. The process by which judicial appointments are made is also more independent and distanced from government after these reforms. Other ideas that keep the Judiciary independent, which are not included in the extract are also important. One important aspect of Judicial Independence is the idea that Judges pay cannot be manipulated by the government, their pay is determined by an independent...
Words: 860 - Pages: 4
...James Thomas, Senator for the State of Oklahoma To the Congress of the United States of America: When our Constitution was first drafted the Founding Fathers argued long and hard about the inclusion of a Bill of Rights .The key reason the Founders finally united and agreed to pass a Bill of Rights, even though the Federalists had initially argued that a piece of paper could not act to protect individual freedoms, was because they felt there had to be a way to “oblige the government to control itself,” (Postell). There are many searches of colonists’ private homes and their inability to protect themselves from such intrusions by the British Crown led the Founders to pass the Fourth Amendment (Flex Your Rights Foundation). At its core, the Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be free from an absolute government intrusion and from a government that has run wild with its own power. The Fourth Amendment says (Findlaw): The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. People have a right to feel safe in their houses and property cannot be lost to government action simply because the government has the power. To protect people from government intrusion and its...
Words: 1704 - Pages: 7
