The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.* It seems, sometimes, that the Supreme Court is involved in issues where they have no business being, and similarly with the federal government. While their intervention is supposed to be in the name of the freedom of the American people, it acts as an infringement upon that freedom. As it is seen in US Term Limits v Thornton and Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, when the people consciously consent to laws that have been passed and the way in which they are carried out, it is unnecessary for the Court or the federal
…show more content…
Sometimes, the people know what they are doing and what their state legislatures are doing. In the cases of US Term Limits v Thornton and Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court was used unnecessarily, and, instead, the cases could have been resolved in-state. In Arizona powers delegated to the states, like writing their own constitutions, was overridden by the supremacy of the Constitution. In cases such as these, the Constitution should not have been involved, should not have been the supreme overlord of a state and its people and its people’s rights. In Term Limits, the people of Arkansas had voted to remove long-standing incumbent officials from election ballots, though not completely eradicating them from the election. This would have been in the best interest of the people of Arkansas and have allotted for some fresh ideas coming into the legislature.* The states have Police Powers, which give them the ability to enact legislation that protects the safety, health, welfare, and morality of their citizens, and this law would fall under the welfare and morality categories because the state, with its people in agreement, thought that an incumbent 's constant presence in office prevented the growth of the state. In Arizona, the issue was similar, but …show more content…
In such circumstances as the aforementioned cases, the Court should have had no part in the discussion surrounding the laws enacted, as it was the duty of the states to work within themselves to find a resolution. Injustice that would warrant Court involvement, in my opinion, would be that which impeded upon an individual’s right to live in the nation. Cases like Heart of Atlanta v US and Cooper v Aaron are ones in which Court involvement were necessary, because an individual’s constitutional right was impeded upon by laws, de facto and de jure. Issues where the individual is not eligible, under the instances in which they find themselves, to use their rights found in the United States’ Constitution’s Bill of Rights - and following amendments - should be brought to the Court. Such injustices harm the people, but in cases like Term Limits and Arizona there was no harm to the people, because the people made conscious decisions to act. Without that conscious consent and without the ability to have consent, the Court should be involved, but not in these types of
Sometimes, the people know what they are doing and what their state legislatures are doing. In the cases of US Term Limits v Thornton and Arizona State Legislature v Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court was used unnecessarily, and, instead, the cases could have been resolved in-state. In Arizona powers delegated to the states, like writing their own constitutions, was overridden by the supremacy of the Constitution. In cases such as these, the Constitution should not have been involved, should not have been the supreme overlord of a state and its people and its people’s rights. In Term Limits, the people of Arkansas had voted to remove long-standing incumbent officials from election ballots, though not completely eradicating them from the election. This would have been in the best interest of the people of Arkansas and have allotted for some fresh ideas coming into the legislature.* The states have Police Powers, which give them the ability to enact legislation that protects the safety, health, welfare, and morality of their citizens, and this law would fall under the welfare and morality categories because the state, with its people in agreement, thought that an incumbent 's constant presence in office prevented the growth of the state. In Arizona, the issue was similar, but …show more content…
In such circumstances as the aforementioned cases, the Court should have had no part in the discussion surrounding the laws enacted, as it was the duty of the states to work within themselves to find a resolution. Injustice that would warrant Court involvement, in my opinion, would be that which impeded upon an individual’s right to live in the nation. Cases like Heart of Atlanta v US and Cooper v Aaron are ones in which Court involvement were necessary, because an individual’s constitutional right was impeded upon by laws, de facto and de jure. Issues where the individual is not eligible, under the instances in which they find themselves, to use their rights found in the United States’ Constitution’s Bill of Rights - and following amendments - should be brought to the Court. Such injustices harm the people, but in cases like Term Limits and Arizona there was no harm to the people, because the people made conscious decisions to act. Without that conscious consent and without the ability to have consent, the Court should be involved, but not in these types of