In most Supreme Court cases, the majority opinion usually sets the precedence for future cases and the concurrence has little to do with precedence. However, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer Justice Jackson’s concurrence creates a three-tiered system for contested Presidential acts. Each tier gives the Court a reasonable idea how to determine whether or not the President’s act was constitutional or not. The first tier is the President’s highest amount of power. It combines his actions and the actions Congress has delegated to him.…
Although a majority of documents convey the impression, to be against the Supreme Court having the power to question the constitutionality of federal laws; but the amount of documents that agree, have more solid evidence in their argument. The Supreme Court should have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws. Federalist No. 78, the Marbury v. Madison decision, Article III of the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 are prime examples to prove that the judicial branch has the authority to do so. First of all, in Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1788; declares that, “[The] courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature...”(Doc D).…
Judicial powers are stated in the Constitution and we labeled the Supreme Court, and those courts that are below the highest in the land, congress has the obligation to establish these courts. Distribution of power allows the Supreme Court to have the final say-so in cases involving: ambassadors, other public ministers and counsels. During any other cases the Supreme Court should have the power of court review and the ability to change the outcomes of the lower courts final deacons. Thus the question that will arise is that, if an act is untasteful in the Constitutions terms can the law become the law of the country, this should be an interesting topic for elected officials.…
Over the course of his career, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed a total of seven justices to the United States Supreme Court. Professor of Law at Harvard, and author, Noah Feldman, focuses on the background and evolution of four of FDR’s most influential justice appointees—Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and Robert Jackson— throughout his book Scorpions. In the Supreme Court of FDR, and in our modern-day court, one often wonders how justices’ rulings are influenced. Throughout Scorpions, one may see FDR’s justices’ voting behavior demonstrates that a justice’s background, and their friendships, or vendettas against other members on the court, may impact voting behavior. In addition, there may be different degrees…
Bhagwat argues “the Court indicates an unwillingness to share its power to make new law, which is an aspect of the judicial power, with other courts within the federal judiciary..” However, if the Court shared its power to make new law, the results would have a wide scope of variance throughout state to state and region to region. Considering there are eleven district courts and ninety-four United States district courts, it would be difficult to satisfy each judge on what he or she would like to input into a new law to best fit everyone.…
In deciding the books “Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate” and “Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S.” for review, the central topic to consider for discussion quite literally hits us over the head via the book titles. But to be thorough (tedious) I shall mention it more blatantly: The topic for this review discussion is the concept of Filibustering. The opportunity and method to filibuster is what gives the US Senate an interesting twist to its proceedings. The right of senators to singly or in a group, speak for an unlimited time unless opponents can secure sixty votes, also known as a super-majority, to impose cloture is preserved in the chamber's traditions and practices.…
Dynamic v. Constrained Courts When it comes to the American court system, there are two predominant but opposing viewpoints: the constrained and the dynamic court views. While both views relate to the power the court system holds, the constrained view takes the stance that the court’s power is limited, while the…
1. The Supreme Court decisions in a case affect significantly the entire country’s legal system. Therefore, models of judicial decision making were created to explain the Supreme Court’s behavior and how they influence policies. While the legal, attitudinal and the strategic model are not the only theories of judicial decision making, those constitute the most prevalent hypotheses to explain judicial decisions.…
Brandon Henderson Professor Dr. Edoh Agbehonou Pols 1101 17 April 2015 The decision between Marbury v. Madison was made under judicial review and is considerably the most important decision in the history of the United States, judicial review is when the doctrine of legislative and executive actions are under review. This case gave the supreme says “The government of the united states is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written” (5 U.S 137). Court the power to limit congressional power.…
The Antifederalist argue the judges of the Supreme Court are a vital part in the judiciary branch controlling the legislative branch and if need be, the Supreme Court could resort to determining what the extent of the powers of Congress are (AF 78). Next to permanency in office, otherwise known as tenure nothing could contribute more to the independence of the judges than their support…
In theory, the Supreme Court is meant to be the unbiased force in the United States. However, it has become increasingly apparent that the Supreme Court Justices have a noticeable bias towards their political parties. Unlike Congress, where the political bias from the representatives is expected, the Supreme Court is not meant to have a political leaning. The Constitution states the purpose of the Supreme Court is meant to interpret the Constitution in the most apolitical way possible. However, this is a very recent issue that has developed.…
That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?” ( John Dickhaus; 2013) This decision means the rights were given to the Supreme Court to decide this case even though it was stated in the constitution. The courts give many reasons for us to be ashamed of them, but does this warrant the need to limit the tenure of federal judges and turn the court into a partisan war zone? Justices are not concerned with popularity, they make hard, life altering decisions every day without the fear of making many people mad. Justice should be able to sit the bench without fear of worrying about their positions in the court and focus their time and energy on the hard judicial case decisions that come their…
The confirmation battles over recently nominated justices certainly suggest that many people view the justices’ personal politics as an important factor in judicial decision-making. But we should not so quickly conclude that Supreme Court justices, like politicians, merely try to institute their own policy preferences. A number of factors complicate the analysis. First, it is difficult to disentangle a justice’s political preferences from his or her…
Throughout our history, there has been a concurring question, in which the burden has weighed heavy the shoulders of many citizens. Should Supreme Court judges be elected or appointed? In the process of this debate, a main concern of the overall argument shadows the question that if today’s method of selection is constitutional and publicly acceptable. In order to keep the public content and still have a reliable court system, there are many factors that are taken into place, which is also one of the reasons why the answer to this question has yet to be justified. In addition, there is an equal amount of supporters on either side who each claim their position is the most ethical and reasonable choice.…
J. Cecelia Shaulis April 13, 2015 Pols-Y 211 Dalecki Exam 3- Miranda v. Arizona One of the biggest players in law interpretation and policy-making is the judiciary system. While the other two branches of government have some control over the judiciary system through checks and balances, the federal courts have a great deal of power in the form of judicial review. Judicial review is the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.…