10th Amendment Pros And Cons Essay

Given the legal nature of the gerrymandering issue, there is an extensive legal background on the issue since the ninetieth century. This literature review gives the more relevant legal background regarding Pennsylvania’s current situation, as well as background information on the novel ways that policy-makers and researchers measure political gerrymandering. Keeping the legal background and measurement procedures in context, there are also legislative reforms and commission procedures that states have taken in order to ameliorate the problems that arise from gerrymandering. A. Constitutionality & Legal Background The Pennsylvania State Constitution contains relevant clauses that must be applied to any redistricting plan.

The United States developed politically and economically in the late 1700s and early 1800s through individuals who were passionate about the future of America. Although passionate, not all men agreed on the same ideas; this led them to split into two groups. These groups, or political parties, spent much of their time advocating for certain policies, events, or other governmental issues, such as supporting or opposing the current president. Primarily because of the difference in their leaders ' beliefs, the two- party system developed with each party built on different principles; The Federalist 's ideas often clashed with the Democratic-Republican 's. These ideas were originally set in stone and rarely wavered, but under circumstances

In Federalist #48, framer James Madison explained congress is, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” In the Constitution, the powers and limits on congress are addressed first in great detail. In Article one, section eight, the first clause states that congress has the power to tax, in clause three they have the power to regulate commerce, and in clause 11 they have the power to declare war. In Article I, section nine, of the constitution the limits of congress are outlined.

Carol I am in agreement with you concerning this matter. The United States has allowed nine-black robed executioners to become the rulers by fiat. According to Madison in his Report of 1800 on the Virginia Resolution, the role of the SCOTUS is to judge whether the other two branches are acting constitutionally. The failure today is not with the constitution, it is with the reaction of the states to the unconstitutional actions of the high court.

The Constitution fastens the responsibility of trying impeachments upon the Senate. Yet some Senators have doubted whether they have the requisite competence to try impeachments . Rule XI was adopted as a response to poor attendance and preparation by Senators in impeachment trials in the early twentieth century. Yet even in the 1980s, some Senators claimed that they had not bothered to prepare before voting, and such proceedings diverted their energies away from legislative business of greater concern to their constituents. Others argued the proceedings restored their confidence in the Senate 's institutional competence to conduct them.

The question or issue presented to the court and the date oral arguments are scheduled to be heard On Tuesday December 8, 2015 the Supreme Court examined if “one-person, one-vote rule” affords eligible voters any reasonable protection? The question for the case was as follows: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that districting take into account the number of voters rather than the total population? The Parties in the case Plaintiffs:

The act established that companies could not use treasury money to support or dissent someone’s political campaign, and the case decided whether are not this law was against the first and fourteenth amendment . The outcome of the case decided that this law was in fact not against the first or fourteenth amendment because companies could not be regarding as people and therefore did not reserve the same kinds of rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech or equal protection under the law . In the case of McConnell v. Federal Election Committee, the BCRA of 2002 was brought into question and whether or not Congress had the right to limit companies spending of money towards political campaigns, even if it was considered to be soft money and

Two years ago, in June of 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that District of Columbia’s law which banned its citizens from keeping a handgun in their home violated the Second Amendment, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. When looking back on this case, it must be noted that the Supreme Court did not clearly define whether or not the Second Amendment applied to the States, since the District of Columbia is a federal territory, run solely by Congress. Fast forward to today in Oak Park, which is a suburb of Chicago, they have laws in place that ban almost all citizens from possessing a handgun. Otis McDonald, Adams Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson filed a suit against the city, stating this ban has left them without a proper tool for self-defense against criminals, and that it violates their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

A “judicial review,” is a court’s authority to examine an executive or legislative act if it shows anything conflicting to constitutional values. The type of power that allows a court to examine any of the actions in the branches is what the judicial review does. The United States Supreme Court possess the highest authority and is over both the federal and the state courts in the country. When a judicial review is conducted it helps the state courts determine whether or not statutes are valid in the state. If any of the state’s laws is in direct violation of the United States Constitution, then it is deemed those statues are not valid.

Judicial Reform in the United States Supreme Court Introduction: Being well known as the “least accountable branch of the government”, it is more than apparent that the time for reform has come in the Supreme Court. While once withholding great reputations, with issues concerning Justices few and far between, it has been noted in previous years that allegations associated with Supreme Court Justices have been more common. The answer for the increasing problematics is simple: the Justices have grown comfortable. Therefore, it is crucial for the good of the nation that our Justices understand that they too are held accountable by the same laws laid out in the United States Constitution that adhere to the very people they are trusted in governing.