Mississippi v. Johnson 71 U.S. (4 Wall) 475 (1867) Facts A case involving After the civil war, Congress passed the Reconstructions Acts of 1867. President Johnson vetoes the legislation, but congress overrode his veto and the acts became federal law. In response, Mississippi sued President Johnson asking for an injunction to prohibit him from enforcing the laws. Mississippi argued that the president should not be and is not above the law. The president was preforming a ministerial action because there was not an exercise of discretion in carrying out an act of Congress.
One Federalist who had kept his job was Judge William Marbury. Many Republicans argued that all the appointments were aimed at federal power, and the law was unconstitutional. Marbury was appointed by John Adams to keep peace in the capital. When Jefferson took office, he ordered James Madison, who was his secretary of state, to cease the appointments. Under the Judiciary Act of 1801, Marbury sued Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Obama’s executive amnesty, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), in the upcoming Supreme Court case” () United States v. Texas. DAPA was put on hold back in February of 2015 due to having 26 states “filing a lawsuit against the executive action” (), Texas being one of the states. The lawsuit began with “former attorney general Greg Abbott, who is now the governor for the Lone Star State, but it remains alive under current Attorney General Ken Paxton” (). Paxton was able to get support from “Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit” () which put DAPA at a standstill “preventing the federal government from implementing the program” (). Solicitor General Donald Verilli plans to use the argument that DAPA “goes against Congress’ framework that determines who may enter and stay in the country” ().
Congress never declared a state of war against North Korea, however Congress did continue to provide funding. Total U.S. casualties: 36,574 killed, 103,284 wounded, POW/MIA 12,640. Truman also declared the use of emergency powers when he seized private steel mills that failed to produce steel because of a labor strike in 1952. With the Korean Conflict ongoing, Truman believed he could not wage war successfully if the economy failed to provide him with the resources necessary to keep the troops well equipped. The U. S. Supreme Court, however, refused to accept that argument in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, voting 6-3 that neither Commander in Chief powers, nor any claimed emergency powers gave the President the authority to seize private property without Congressional legislation.
NAME OF THE CASE: Marbury v Madison 1803 VOTE: The vote count was 4-0 BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE: In March of 1801, William Marbury (along with many others being appointed to government posts) was appointed to be a Justice of the Peace near the end of Adams administration of the presidency. Being a member of the Federalist Party, John Adams tried to appoint as many Federalists into the cabinet. However, since these individuals were designated these jobs so last minute they were never truly finalized and the commissions were never handed out officially. James Madison, whom was Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state, denied delivering their commissions. Marbury argued that they deserved these places and sued for their jobs in the Supreme
We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed
The Supreme Court did not share Lincoln’s opinion. Especially, the Chief Justice Roger Taney who, in his role as the federal circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional in a decision called Ex Parte Merryman. He did so after his recommendation for a trial of Merryman in order to determine if there were any legitimate reasons for his arrest met if refusal form Merryman captors. In the end, The President ignored Taney ruling, and Congress never contested Lincoln’s Habeas Corpus decision. Lincoln also met with strong resistance form the general public in regards to his executive order.
The Judiciary Act of 1801, a law that created more federal judge positions, contributed to the establishment of judicial review by becoming the first law to be overturned by the process of judicial review and because it caused Chief Justice John Marshall to lay down three principles for judicial review. To begin, the Judiciary Act of 1801 was created shortly before President John Adams left office as an attempt of the Federalist party in order to help keep as many Federalists as possible in government. Adams did this knowing that he or any of his fellow Federalists would not be elected as president. This law evoked the case Marbury vs. Madison, a case between a man who had been promised a job created by the Judiciary Act of 1801 and the secretary
He was a special prosecutor that the president reluctantly hired to investigate the Watergate affair. Cox demanded that Nixon hand over the tapes, and Nixon refused, but he proposed to allow Senator John C. Stennis review them. Nixon did not was to release the tapes, so when Cox refused to agree to that deal Nixon fired him. However, the Supreme Court unanimously ordered Nixon to provide the tapes. This decision reaffirmed the principle that the president is not above the law.
An example of this branch checking another branch June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that section three of the “Defense of Marriage Act" is unconstitutional and that the government can’t discriminate against married L/G couples in deciding federal protection or benefits. The Judicial Branch rightfully checked this Congress law in an attempt to stop governmental prejudice. An instance of the Judicial Branch being checked is 1805 Associate Justice Samuel Chase was impeached due to expressing his strict federalist ideas in the court and the idea of Judges serving for life irritating Thomas Jefferson; The House of Reps passed the articles of impeachment, and then was acquitted by the Senate. This shows that the other branches have the right (with the right resources) to impeach Supreme Court justices if they step out of
After unsuccessful attempts of appeals to the DOL Wage Appeals, February 5, 1987 action was commenced and included the Secretary of Labor, other DOL officials and the Comptroller General implemented the debarred order and annulled the debarment on the finding that it was unsupported by substantial evidence. By April 16, 1987 the judge dismissed the action. The CWHSSA does provide two provision delegating rulemaking authority to the Secretary but only one of which is relevant. Overall Congress didn’t mean to allow the Secretary of Labor of that power. It was argued that the debarment was a penalty that could be authorized only by specific statutory language and it was