Even when an illegal arrest occurs does not necessarily mean that all errors will justify invoking the exclusionary rule. The courts have stated that even if the officer’s actions taken were reasonable under the circumstances, which comes under the good faith doctrine, therefore no misconduct needs to be deterred and the exclusionary rule will not apply ("The "Good Faith" Doctrine"). The officer has to prove to the courts that they have the good-faith
The final way the constitution guards against tyranny is through big states vs. small states. Big states vs. small states compromise meant that in the House of Representatives, representation was determined by the population of each state whereas the senate representation was equal. In the house “representatives shall be appointed according to population,” and “the U.S. Senate shall be composed of two senators from each state” (Constitution of The United States, 1787). Big states vs. small states is the final way the constitution guards against
The living constitution approach implies that consequences do guide decisions because rules are bent and the original meaning of the documents are reinterpreted and applied to modern situations. Originalists argue that one cannot look to judges to come up with different answers because one does not like what happens when you apply the original view. However, as strong as this argument against the living constitution approach is, they still uphold timeless principles through these actions but just not as strictly as the Originalists do. An example of this is the confrontation clause debate about whether an accused molester should or should not be required to confront the child accuser in court. The Originalist approach says that the molester should be required to confront the child accuser because consequences cannot be considered and we must stick to the original view of the documents.
Some may argue that the government should be strictly respected because they provide and protect our basic freedoms and needs. Others may disagree and state that it is appropriate to not only rebel, but overthrow the government no matter the condition due to a lack of trust and a sense of individuality that these defiant citizens feel they possess and must preserve. I feel that these two views are too extreme and that there is no sense in having too much or too little trust in the government. People should be cautious, and should not act unless there is a sense of intense corruption within the government which can be reversed through peaceful actions, brought on by voicing an opinion, even if it is not deemed valuable by the
The Constitution of the United States is the concrete platform that the nation is built upon which contains fundamental principles in which our nation is governed by. However, much of the Constitution is very ambiguous which leads to controversy in the court room. For example, the Eighth Amendment which states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Baltzell). The first part of the Eighth Amendment protects accused citizens of the United States from unreasonable and extreme amounts of bail that would prevent them from being released from pretrial containment and it also limits the amount of a fine that can be given to a convicted person (8th Amendment)(Kurt). The
The Constitution made it possible for Congress, which comprises the House of Representatives and the Senate to check the powers of the executive by impeachment thus making them responsible before the Senate, where they may be tried and punished by the judiciary. With checks and balances, the legislature, executive, and judiciary can limit the powers of the others. As such, no branch is more powerful thus making sure that the power is balanced between them All legislative power is given to the Congress. The Congress also has the power to confirm and impeach both executive officials and judges in addition to overriding a Presidential veto. The Congress has the power to influence the composition of the judiciary as well as regulate the size of the courts.
Unlike the perspective of Zinn, the Pageant argued that both these acts helped start the transformation from private greed to public need, while Zinn strongly believed that the government legislation was not effective at curbing the corruption, highlighting a difference in perspective. Even though it is true that these acts did set examples for more effective legislation, these acts were still not helpful and did not actually tackle the
They are given judicial discretion but they expected to remain impartial, independent and free from bias. Justice must not be seen as a popularity contest and judicial independence helps in the protection from public outrage due to abuse on issues of public policy .Where there is impartiality there is objectivity. One must consider what is moral and just in the eyes of the
As such, equality law seeks to remedy a problem through imposing certain injunctions in order to solve a problem. However, one important aspect of the 7th amendment is that it bars the judges from overruling the findings of a jury unless there was such a violation of a common law; hence, in all but a few cases, the ruling of the jury will be regarded as a violation of the 7th amendment. Further, the 7th amendment makes specifications that the jury has to be unanimous in all civil cases. Therefore, in my own view, the 7th amendment is beneficial since it protects people from the rights that are abused by the government. It achieves this by ensuring that the government cannot simply lock people up in jails or prions; hence by doing so it protects the citizens from unnecessary tyranny by the government.
But also it helps ensure that the rights of the parties are protected. Con: it can take a long time to work your way through. When you hear pros and cons of due process, they are not talking about food or stem cell research. What is being referred to is the legal system, as cold as it may seem. To be bluntly honest, there are no cons when it comes to the legal system, but the main pro is justice and fairness.
I believe freedom of speech should not be limited. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the right to limit our freedoms ,that act is truly unconstitutional. If we let them limit our freedoms then that gives them the power to limit little by little until it 's eventually all gone. The people should not be suppressed they should be allowed to put forth their opinions and speak against anything they feel isn 't right. the constitution states that you can say whatever you want as long as it does not include anything profine, or violent.
The Judicial branch is the law interpreting branch of government, article III of the constitution establishes a federal system of courts that are separate from the state courts, judges are appointed for life unless they are impeached and judges are also independent of the other two branches and through their exercise of judicial powers judges cannot be threatened by either the executive or the legislative branch. Separation of powers helps guarantees that all government power doesn’t
Sometimes it is best to understand the law first before obeying it. When one thinks a law is unjust, they will go out of their way to go against it and do something about it. At a certain point, one doesn’t have to act accordingly to what they don’t believe in, but they can’t do whatever pleases them. There has been many controversies involving the act of non violence civil disobedience. Although most feel like breaking an unjust law might be the best solution to what they think is right, in reality, I agree to the fact that people are afraid to face the consequences that are given after their actions.