The outcome of Shelby County v. Holder, a Supreme Court Case in which a district in Alabama appealed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, has resulted in the United States becoming a less democratic state (oyez.com). Democracies are defined as governments that reflect the will of its people, which can be achieved by allowing citizens a voice to express themselves in society. Most democracies are attained by giving each citizen an equal vote (ushistory.org). After the ruling of Shelby County, various states throughout United States, especially in the south, have now had more influence upon creating voting requirements. The ruling of the case has made the United States less democratic as it has influenced many states to narrow their electorate, making it harder for everyone to vote and contribute to society.
When I think of the judicial system, I think of power and final decision making. In a sense, that concept can be scary. However, the judicial system by no means has as much power as one might think, and we can thank the Bill of Rights for that. Specifically, the 6th amendment is what protects us in a court of law. The 6th amendment sets boundaries and rules for trying and convicting a citizen of the United States, and that is why it is so beneficial to us. It has saved innocent people from corrupt accusations, it has convicted guilty people whom deny their crimes, it has helped America’s judicial system immensely, but it is not bullet proof or set in stone. There are loopholes, exceptions, and even exemptions. I hope that by the end of this
What is actually happening is allowing Supreme Court justices to serve for life. An article stated that “by making new appointments less frequent, longer tenure has diminished the abilities of presidents and senators to provide the only form of democratic accountability that is consistent with judicial independence,” (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). William Douglas, who has set record for Supreme Court tenure (almost 37 years) who has cast the deciding vote, along with Hugo Black who retired at the age of 85 and Thurgood Marshall who retired at the age of 83. “ I’m getting old and falling apart,” Marshall said on his last day (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). That’s why it is better to bring fresh perspectives, and especially those people who understand the
Federalists and Anti-Federalists both have an arguable amount of supporters. I am in favor of the Anti-Federalist point of view. The Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts, at the expense of the state and local courts. They argued that the federal courts would be too far away to provide justice to the average citizen. In addition the Constitution allows the government too much power,does not provide for a republican government, and it also does not include a Bill of Rights, which is vital.
As stated earlier I believe that the Judicial Branch should have the right to decide if a law is constitutional or not. The court case of Marbury vs. Madison is important because it brought up this point. I believe this is true because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money. Because they are the branch to decide if something is lawful or not they are the perfect branch to make the decision on whether something is constitutional or
United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones should have had the same outcome from the Supreme Court. Both, former President 's violated the law and wanted to use presidential privileges to dismiss their cases. In the United States v. Nixon, the Court had the right to order the President to relinquish the tapes to Congress to use as evidence for the trial against the seven members held accountable. Those accused were owed a duty by the Court to be given a fair and speedy trial. In the Clinton v. Jones case, the Court should have not granted the former President Clinton immunity because the general public needs to realize that not even the President can violate the law and get away with it. I agree with the Supreme Court on placing emphasizes on keeping the presidential power in check but respecting the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court has the power to hear cases that involve federal questions because the
The arguments for strict Construction government Are formed against The View of the best people should rule versus a rule by the people. That the best possible government is one that governs least. Because a smaller government with limited powers is most likely to leave the people alone to enjoy the blessings of liberty. To keep the government small we would insist upon a strict construction or interpretation of the Constitution. the Constitution as we insist means exactly what it says no more and no less. Any additions to the powers listed are unconstitutional and potentially dangerous.
James Madison wrote The Federalist 51 in order to state how the future government would make liberty possible in society. Madison believed that each branch should be, for the most part, independent. Montesquieu previously thought of this idea of separation of power. He then goes on to explain that to ensure that each branch is independent, it would mean that the citizens would select the president, legislators, and the judges. However, framers found great difficulty in making the correct decision when it came to an election. The Judicial Branch would suffer because the average framer did not understand the qualifications of the Supreme Court Justices.
“The purpose of the United States Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government not the American people.” – The Federalist Papers. Our government is not the exact same way it was from the very beginning of its creation. It has changed dramatically over the course of about two-hundred years, as said in the video, “The Constitution must change for challenges in the future.” Truthfully, it has been changed and adapted to meet the ever changing needs of our society. In the very beginning or the “birth,” of our United States government we did not have a constitution, in fact the democratic experiment did not begin in 1776. The American government went through several trial and errors to see what worked and what did not before creating and establishing the U.S. Constitution.
In the United States government, there are three branches called the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Out of these three, the judicial branch is the most powerful. The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court, the court with the most power in the country, and other federal courts that are lower in the system; the purpose of this branch is to look over laws and make sure they are constitutional and reasonable. This process is called judicial review; judicial review by definition is the “power of a court to declare acts of governmental bodies contrary to the Constitution null and void” (Neubauer and Meinhold 492). Chief Justice John Marshall first brought up this power in the
I disagree with Alexander Hamilton’s statement that the "Judiciary is the weakest branch of government." The United States government is divided among three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive and legislative branches are selected by the people, but the members of the Judicial Branch are chosen by the President. Which already shows how important the judicial branch is. The judicial branch is essential because it supplements the other two branches. It interprets the law and decides if the laws are constitutional. The job of the judicial branch is to balance out the executive and legislative branches of government, so that no branch is more powerful than the others. Not having the judicial branch, would
Marbury v. Madison during the year of 1803, discussed the judicial branch’s power over lawmaking. Thomas Jefferson mentioned how the Court’s final choice made the Constitution, “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary” (Document D). The judicial branch did receive more freedom early in the nineteenth century. The judicial branch was still required to follow what is stated in the Constitution in order to get a national law passed. Another way John Marshall expanded the national government was through the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward in the year of 1819. This case concerned the state of New Hampshire wanting to take control from Dartmouth College’s trustees and replace them with Republican trustees. John Marshall concluded that Dartmouth was a private entity, not public. Marshall successfully exercised the national government’s power over a state’s government by limiting the controls of the New Hampshire state government. A way that John Marshall was not so successful in developing the national government was in President Jackson’s response to the final decision of Worcester v. Georgia (1832). Worcester v. Georgia addressed the Indian Removal Act. John Marshall decided against removing the Cherokees from their Georgia location and President Jackson was furious and was credited with saying, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” (Document I). President
On the other hand, Marshall ruled the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be “an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive” (Marbury v. Madison, history.com). In spite of settling this dispute, ultimately, the Supreme Court elevated and contributed to its power by establishing its right to judicial review of laws made by Congress, that power not implicitly included in the Constitution beforehand (Marbury v. Madison, www.inspireeducators.com).
This couldn't have been made any clearer. All powers not expressly given to the government (and those necessary for it to carry out its duties) rest in the hands of the states and the people. What the Supreme Court has done today is over step its boundaries and directly violate the tenth amendment to the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is federal government given the power to dictate the terms and legality of marriage, yet that is exactly what they have done by forcing the legality of gay marriage in all states, and forcing all states to recognize the validity of gay marriage. This was a decision that should have rested in the hands of the states and the people to decide for themselves, but instead the supreme court decided to completely ignore the tenth amendment and deliver its own ruling, which is as good as law. This was wrong, and the five justices who voted in favor of it know it was. Even more disappointing however is how happy the American people are to see their tenth amendment right snatched from their hand without a second
There have been thousands amendments proposed in Congress. The Constitution creates a two-stage amendment process. This process is known as the proposal and ratification. It is extremely difficult for an amendment to become a part of the Constitution. Therefore, an amendment can be blocked at any given time. The importance of the Supreme Court increases as the Constitution considers proposing