Part one: I strongly believe that judge Foster’s view is more persuasive. The judges should take into consideration the legislative intent when judges interpret and apply statutes due to the fact that words do not always show the intent that the legislative branch had when it created a statute. As a result, the goal of the statute will not be reached. The fact that words sometimes do not convey the real message of it is really important when it comes to criminal system. It will never be fair to punish a person when the judge knows that the words existing in the statute are not what the legislative branch intended to punish.
The Supreme Court, while conceivably powerful and instituted to uphold the Constitution, actually has little ability to harness and implement its power to protect minorities. The opinions/rulings of the Supreme Court are not directed to the public, rather these opinions are directed to check the other two branches of government, which are able to implement rulings to protect minorities, if they so choose. Simply, the Court acts as a “middle man.” The Supreme Court only has power when they strike down a law as unconstitutional and even then their power to protect minorities is limited. When the Court does not declare something unconstitutional they are upholding legislation, effectively agreeing with the other two branches. When the Court hears a case and
Although some may argue that law is imperfect and there are instances in which the law is incomplete or otherwise non-ideal and therefore must be broken in some fashion at some point. I strongly disagree. By violating the law, you jeopardize the very power you seek to obtain. If the law is not good enough for those in power to follow,
I disagree that the “Living Constitution” will destroy it because society changes and the laws that govern it need to change also. I think that Scalia was stuck in an outdated mindset of viewing the constitution. I agree with you that Breyer 's argument was the better of the two, and I agree that the interpretation of the constitution should be flexible and not be fixed.
A statute may be voided for vagueness if it is determined a reasonable person cannot comprehend what activity is being prohibited (Hall, 2014). Additionally, the statute may be voided if the penalty for the activity is not clearly defined so that a reasonable person could discern the penalties for the prohibited actions. This can become a due process issue, by not giving full disclosure to the people explaining the action prohibited, moreover, not detailing the punishment for the action. The void-for-vagueness doctrine provides a protection of the people, requiring that laws be detailed to avoid police and prosecutors from having infinite power over determining what individuals should be charged. The void-for-vagueness doctrine most commonly applies to criminal cases.
Even though the power is separated there can 't be too much power to an individual branch. This is where checks and balances come in. If one branch writes a bill and another branch thinks that the law is unconstitutional then it can “check” that bill which means that it cannot pass. According to federalist paper number 51 “…the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that they may be a check on the other…(The three branches) should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” This makes sure that no branch has more power than the
Ensuring the vote by drawing the district 's lines, entails that normal constituents of a party will have their right to vote violated. The Voting Right Act while allowing this dilution, does not consider the fact that the votes become so diluted that they are meaningless. Making a vote meaningless does not only throw the concept of voting out, but also the basis of this country, democracy. Democracy is the decision making process exercising the authority to solve public problem, according to the three principles of: Popular Sovereignty, Political Equality, Majority Rule. The principle of political equality is being ignored by making a group’s vote diluted to the point where it means nothing, makes their vote unequal to others.
To put it simply, using these devices without a warrant will simply result in an unwanted argument. In court, an individual could fight that their privacy was invaded and that, without a warrant, the authorities had no right to use technology to get the information that they needed. If they had enough information to be suspicious of that individual’s actions, they should have been able to get a warrant or, if there was not enough information, investigate further until there was enough, without invading the individual’s privacy or violating their 4th Amendment
The Spirit of Laws. 1748. He states, “To prevent this abuse, it is necessary, from the very nature of things, that power should be a check to power...“ (Document D). This evidence explains that checks and balances because it talks about checking powers. There will be a lot of unfairness and government will not work properly.the legislative and executive branch cannot work against each other they must work together.
Sullivan (1964), but higher than the previous state standard where damages may be claimed if defamatory articles were published, Burger disagrees with the court 's rationale. Instead of creating a new approach, Burger states he would prefer to let the law progress "with respect to private citizens rather than embark on a new doctrinal theory which has no jurisprudential ancestry." Although he does not agree with the majority ruling, Burger does find that Gertz was wrongly held accountable. He cites the importance of Sixth Amendment and that lawyers should be viewed as neither positive nor negative. Further, he argues such views would cause lawyers to become selective with unpopular clients.
In my opinion, I believe that Nixon and Clinton forgot that they are liable for actions that are not related to the duties listed in Article II of the United States Constitutions. That each branch has their privileges but when their actions and decisions are questionable the other branches have the power to check. Therefore, when the Supreme Court formulate their opinions they did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. When there is an issue raised that involves the Constitution, the Court has the right to hear the case because the judicial branch has the power to interpret the Constitution. Judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison, the court has the power to interpret what the statute means and if it is in accordance or contradiction with the Constitution.
Textualism is interpretation based on what is actually writing in the constitution, which is what the dissenters in this case believed they should have ruled on. Chief Justice Roberts wrote while the ruling is fair, he believes it shouldn’t have been ruled on by the Supreme Court because it is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. The majority ruling is more from the originalism perspective because they interpreted what was in the constitution and applied it to the situation at hand. The constitution is broad, and those who exercise originalism believe the framers left it that way on purpose in order to be able to adapt the constitution to changing
Justice Stevens’s majority opinion in this case appeals to Dworkin’s method, while Justice Kennedy’s reasoning would be endorsed by Hart. Dissenting opinions by Justice Thomas and Justice O’Connor use Justice Scalia’s version of textualism to come to a conclusion. Justice Steven’s majority opinion was wrong to decide this case in the way it did for various reasons. He selectively ignores precedents that are damaging to the argument he is trying to build and misinterprets some of the precedents he does choose to use. Second both Justice Stevens and Justice Kennedy erroneously refused to recognize the fundamental
The denial of equal protection claim that was filed was remanded. The courts decided that the Officers involved have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity would not have been granted if the Officer conduct violated Sinthasommphone’s constitutional rights. Analysis The U.S. District Court ruled regarding the U.S. Supreme Court had made a decision previously that the constitution protects people from intrusion of the state. Qualified immunity is a legal issue based on the factual occurrences of each individual case and should be judged on such facts.
Congress did not intend the FDCA to preempt state law’s inability to warn actions. Wyeth 's argument misinterprets the purpose of the congress on the FDCA. In Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, “Congress has not authorized a federal agency to pre-empt state law directly, the weight this Court accords the agency 's explanation of state law 's impact on the federal scheme depends on its thoroughness, consistency, and persuasiveness.” Therefore, based on these arguments Wyeth should be liable under a state law claim that the label was inadequate and could have altered the label to increase drug safety making use of CBR regulation. In addition, the court has the sight to elucidate federal preemption