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
…show more content…
The Court issues an opinion but the problem
lies in that Congress can overturn this ruling via amendment or revision to the original law.
Striking down laws doesn’t give the Supreme Court ability to protect minorities, it gives the
Court power to make a ruling that is left up to Congress to accept and implement or to reject and
amend. Thus, Congress has the true power to protect minorities.
However, the sheer fact that the Supreme Court declares an opinion, whether Congress
amends it or not, is sufficient proof to the fact that the Court can protect minorities. Further, our
government is extremely divided, and has been for many decades, thus making it harder for them
to make new laws or initiate the amendment process. It doesn’t entirely matter if the Supreme
Court is/isn’t directly tied to the public, they make a ruling and it impacts the minorities,
regardless. An analogous example exhibiting the same faulty reasoning would be saying that
when someone mows their lawn, the lawn mower does all the work and the individual has no
impact on the grass being cut when surely he/she does. Similarly, it would be incorrect to
The Constitution may be a mess and need amendments, but it covers our basic rights and freedoms. There are many clauses within it that assure these rights will be kept and not changed. In one one of the clauses it states that no bill shall be passed that would override
Yes. The Supreme Court of the United States has an obligation to uphold the Constitution giving authority to identify acts of Congress that don’t concur with the esteem values and the law. REASONING: 1.
In addition, James Madison stated the idea of Checks and Balances and what it will do to the government, “...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 statement means that each branch should have a different power, so they wouldn’t have any constitutional control over each other. That makes each branch check on the other branches to make sure they are doing everything correctly. One way that the Judicial Branch can check on the Legislative Branch is that when Congress creates laws, the Court can declare laws unconstitutional because some laws might not be a good idea for the people of the country, so the Judicial has the power to take away the possible law.
The system of checks and balances allows each branch of government (Legislative, Executive & Judicial) to check each other to see if their actions are constitutional (follows the constitution) and if the actions are not constitutional they can balance out that power again. “... The constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner that they may be a check on the other…” James Madison states in the Federalist Papers article #51. This means when the branches ane divided one may check the other. One way the branches can check each other is the executive branch can veto a law the legislative branch sends.
With the judiciary being the weakest branch, they could never infringe on individuals rights and liberties. The legislative and executive branches could pass laws or over
That is why they try to stop the violation of rights before it is too late. They are here for everyone brown or white or black, foreign-born or American- born, gay or straight, atheist or pious, poor or rich. Every person in America should know their basic rights and that is why the ACLU have been working hard to make sure no one takes them
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
The deserve to be given a chance at life that has been denied the generations before them. These facts show that something needs to change. Right now everyone is worried about Black Lives Matter, when another issue, Reservation poverty, is in need of just as much attention and help from the government. Suanne Big Crow was a remarkable example of what can come from the reservation. She showed that change starts from inside the reservation and how just one person can make a lasting impact on a
The supreme court has made many decisions to impact civil rights: Plessy vs. Ferguson, Shelley vs. Kraemer, and Loving vs. Virginia. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/andrewyoun574910.html#Q85p26MiKPp7yZDL.99 To begin with, Plessy vs. Ferguson was about a law that required that public places needed to serve colored people separately. Restaurants, theaters, etc. had to serve colored people separately. Tourgée argued that the law requiring separate but equal accommodations was unconstitutional. "
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.
The Equal Rights Amendment says that everybody should be treated equally, no matter what gender that person is. According to an infographic on “Infographic World”, “80,000 military-style raids were conducted by police on civilian homes in 2013”. It also states that “713 unarmed black people were killed by police in 2015, yet only 291 white people were killed.” This really does show that innocent people were getting killed and having their privacy invaded for absolutely no reason at all. Some people say that these people deserved to die, or that they must have done something to have that done to them.
According to the Constitution, people can’t be stripped from their inalienable rights which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Despite the implement of the Constitution, “freedom” was defined differently in the 1980s than it was in the 20th century. Back in the 1980s, “freedom” was still not seen as a right to all people due to some of the laws such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act” that were implemented to go against the Constitution. While, in the 20th century, “freedom” was viewed as a right since “freedom” was offered to every people no matter what their race, their color of the skin, their religion, and their sexuality. For example, former president Barack Obama was able to make same-sex marriage legal, lifted the restriction on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” barred employers for firing their employees for being either transgender or having a different sexuality, allowed everyone to have universal access to ObamaCare, and had a diversified cabinet that helped Obama make tough decisions to make America the most affluent and strongest country in the world.
The judicial branch can declare presidential acts unconstitutional and declare laws unconstitutional. The way this protects against tyranny is because it makes each branch be able to check the other and keep it in balance therefore the name checks and
At least four Supreme Court justices believe that affirmative action is unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts has said that “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”. This viewpoint offers no differentiation between “race consciousness” and “racism”, but is a quite common opinion. This sort of viewpoint is what may drive America towards class-based rather than race-based affirmative action. Because of the disparities in income and wealth, minorities are as likely as whites to benefit under a class-based policy.
For example, in case of a legal dispute, the White is more likely to emerge victorious no matter how unjust and oppressing he could be. I agree with Harris, as the laws affirm self-determination and self-liberty for people, however, those rights were not granted equally. The Whites benefited from them in every way, leaving the Blacks unprotected. Even after the emergence of the US constitution, rights were not granted equally. I believe that it is quite hypocritical from the US to possess a constitution, which is addressed to everyone, but not applied to everyone.