When people think of how government works, unless they’ve taken a government class, they usually think of Congress making laws and the President doing pretty much everything else. No one pays much attention to the Supreme Court unless there is a landmark case or something else to grab the news — like the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the Supreme Court does much more than you’d think regarding keeping the political machine running like a well-oiled … machine. Through not only interpretation of the law, but also judicial activism, the Supreme Court shows it can have as much influence over the laws of the land as either of the other branches of the federal government. In this paper, I will analyze the decision-making methods of the Court using the cases of Gideon v. Wainwright and Betts v. Brady.
America will not become a communist nation, ever. Harvard thought me, when we stand as one, then we can accomplish much more together. As I have been doing for the past decades. And I will intended to do that for the rest of my life. Rejecting or not given me a fair hearing as one of the best Supreme Court nominee by the President of the United States of America, because it is the last year of his Presidency, is unconstitutional in Harvard or any Princeton law books, the books inside of chamber is included.
It 's a good thing that our government is more powerful now, for it helps avoid many issues that our Founding Fathers dealt with. P2 The Articles of Confederation were very weak. Due to the fear of strong governments, such as Britain, the colonists made the government weak. They could not force the states to pay taxes and therefore began to run out of money.
If one of the Democrats Clinton or Sanders is elected they have vowed to nominate a Justice(s) that will overrule Citizens United v. FEC (2013). This will not only bring polarization in the future, but is already doing so, since the more something is discussed the more opinionated citizens become; believing we should either follow exactly what was interpreted from the Constitution or those who allow their experiences with corporations to influence their point of view. If a Republican is elected the ideological majority will remain the same in the court, but even with that being true, the election will inevitably affect future decisions. For example, if Trump becomes president he will likely nominate a Justice(s) who favor corporations in upcoming court cases. There will also likely be many more same-sex marriage and abortion cases in the future and whoever becomes President will appoint a Justice(s) who agrees with them on these major issues, so it is likely that will affect future decisions on those types of cases as well leading to some cases being overturned.
The 22nd amendment states that, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...” Recent discussions and proposals have been put forth to repeal or modify the amendment. No person should have that opportunity to surrender to the charms of power. Two four year terms should be more than enough time to make a positive change for the nation. Two Presidential terms should be the limit of power, and I am not the only person who believes so.
In cases such as these, laws were passed without a second thought as a standing innovation from both sides of the senate arose to acknowledge the president’s declaration. Although it is easier said than done to care about the welfare of ex-prisoners, it is in every person’s best interest to provide them a second chance at success. The simple fact is that at least 95 percent of all convicts in America will ultimately be freed and returned to the community. However, some on-parole offenders not only struggle with meeting with their parole officers but paying for the service itself as well. Besides having to dedicate to their new job, ex-felons in states such as Pennsylvania must pay a $60 fee just to register for the parole program.
Despite all the attempts, the Electoral College has stood the test of time. Why? Because without it, candidates would no longer be required to seek support throughout the country. They could focus solely on highly populated areas and completely ignore the needs of less populated states and regions. Before the Electoral College was officially named the way we would elect a president, the framers had narrowed it down to three options: election by the senate alone, election by the house, or electors chosen by the state 's representation in congress (McCollester).
Once their term was complete, they returned to the lives and career in their state of origin (Vance, 1994, 429). Not convinced, refer to Roger Sherman (founding father), “The representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of the government, they will acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of the constituents...” (Vance, 1994, 429). Fast forward to Congress of the 21st century, there average term for most congressmen is well over 30 years.
This is important because the president will try to fit everyone 's needs and not just a certain group of people’s needs and wants. Lastly, the electoral college helps the president appear more respectable to the people. The electoral votes compared to the popular votes are sometimes drastically different from each other. Normally the electoral college receives more votes than the popular vote does.
This inspired us an idea of direct democracy could work well today in the United States as well; nonetheless, it is too idealistic. This essay will clarify why government is important to our life, the strength and weakness of direct democracy compare to representative democracy, and why direct democracy is unfeasible for America. Undoubtedly, government is one of the most important components of people’s life. It influences us from the simplest price of food to the most complicated financial policy.
The Constitution reserved sovereignty between both sides. It wasn 't until the ratification of the 16th Amendment that the federal government was able to have a much greater influence over the American economy. "...citizens must also possess the minimal resources that are necessary in order to take advantages of the opportunities and to exercise their rights." (p.
In 1837, the first filibuster took place in the Senate. This paved the way for future Congress members to hinder the passing of legislation. Due to the minority obtaining an excessive amount of power through this simple tactic, filibuster reform needs to happen now. This is because our country needs to focus on important issues including climate change, racial justice, and college tuition. This focus will improve our government and America as a whole through dealing with issues that really matter.
According to Posner, “The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution” (Posner). Although the electoral college does prevent some states from having too much power, it also gives immense power to other states, such as Texas, Florida, and California. Another concern for people that support the electoral college is that it helps control swing states from having too much pull. Despite some states having a stronger pull in the voting system, switching to a popular voting system would negate the swing state concept and help each individual citizen proclaim in own political believes, despite the state he/she lives in. William discusses the 2008 election and states, “It 's time for a national popular vote.
Madison believes that large republics are best able to avoid the dangers of faction. This is because at large republics, there are more experiences to share and unity is better valued. Also because the majority rules in republics, but the minorities ideas are still taken into consideration. In Federalist Paper 51, James Madison is explaining that the purpose of the essay is so that people have a better understanding on how the structure of the proposed government makes liberty possible.
The Internet is too vast, and with a single click of a mouse, the government has access to the free flow of information. The second reason why the Sterling case might have continued without Risen’s testimony is because subpoenas are becoming less and less important. According to Lucy Dalglish, former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, “Instead of issuing subpoenas, prosecutors are increasingly executing search warrants or other court orders for reporters’ material or for information held by others. It is easy to retrieve- sometimes with no one’s knowledge.” (“in an age” could start a new paragraph and you can reword the quote)In an age of information, the Internet can severely impinge on the freedom of the press.