In this semester of POLS 2302, we discussed many areas of the government with supreme court cases being the primary evidence of the subjects. The three main areas I enjoyed reading the most about were: "The Federal Court System and Judicial review," where we learned about the different courts and systems. Next, "The Powers and Structure of Congress," which we concentrated on the 1st amendment and a couple others. Lastly, "The Structure of the Executive Branch: The Bureaucracy," which I personally found the hardest to understand, but this covered the president's role and the goals of Bureaucracy. These topics were my favorite discussion because I was unaware of most of the information we covered, and I will also go deeper into former President …show more content…
Trial courts, or district courts, the Appellate, or the circuit courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) which is the only court created from the constitution (Krutz, 498). The second part of this part was Judicial Review. The Judicial Branch of our government has a crucial part in making sure the other two branches, Legislative and Executive, both constitutionally follow their powers. Many of the instances, where their intentions are put into question, are through court cases (Krutz, 508). One of the main ones we discussed considering this subject matter was Murbury v. Madison during the election of 1800. While still in office, during his lame duck period, Adams knew he would lose his control of Congress, so he began to appoint judges, known as the "midnight appointed." However, one of those many he had appointed, and the Senate confirmed, William Murbury, did not get his commission. So, he began to start the journey to sue James Madison, Jefferson's Secretary of State, who was responsible for delivering the official piece of paper. Murbury tried to use a precedent to go straight to the SCOTUS; however, there are only two times when the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction. That is only when the cases deal with foreign ambassadors and cases that have a state as a party (Krutz, …show more content…
In 2016 reports, "20 million uninsured have gained health insurance as a direct consequence of the Affordable Care Act, including 3 million African Americans, 4 million Hispanics, and 8.9 million white, non-Hispanics" (Schembri, 139). The first two are still held with The Affordable Care Act; however, the individual mandate had the most controversies. The individual mandate stated that you must have health insurance, or you will be fined, which did not bring the cost down. In 2012, the Supreme Court had their first encounter with Obamacare in National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) v. Sebelius who was the former Secretary of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff, NFIB, "argued that by requiring individuals to have health insurance, the ACA's so-called individual mandate exceeded Congress's authority under the Constitution" (Parmet, 1070). The court ruled it was Constitutional because you had a choice: buy insurance or pay a tax which Congress has the right to do. However, in the summer of 2017 the individual mandate was appealed and the Congressional Budget Office "projected that the repeal of the individual mandate would add 4 million uninsured people in 2019" (Winfield, 3). Although this made some happy, others say "the mandate has not been that
One of the most controversial topics in the United States in recent years has been the route which should be undertaken in overhauling the healthcare system for the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured. It is important to note that the goal of the Affordable Care Act is to make healthcare affordable; it provides low-cost, government-subsidized insurance options through the State Health Insurance Marketplace (Amadeo 1). Our current president, Barack Obama, made it one of his goals to bring healthcare to all Americans through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. This plan, which has been termed “Obamacare”, has come under scrutiny from many Americans, but has also received a large amount of support in turn for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons include a decrease in insurance discrimination on the basis of health or gender and affordable healthcare coverage for the millions of uninsured. The opposition to this act has cited increased costs and debt accumulation, a reduction in employer healthcare coverage options, as well as a penalization of those already using private healthcare insurance.
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.
The aim of affordable care act (ACA) was to extend health insurance coverage to around 15% of US population who lack it. These include people with no coverage from their employers and don’t have coverage by US health programs like Medicaid (Retrieved from, https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/affordable-care-act/). To achieve this, the law required all Americans to have health insurance which is a reason of controversy because, it was inappropriate intrusion of government into the massive health care industry and insult to personal liberty. To make health care more affordable subsidies are offered and the cost of the insurance was supposed to be reduced by bringing younger, healthier people to the health insurance system. This could be controversial, if older, sicker people who need the coverage most enter the market but younger group decline to do so. The insurance pool will be unbalanced and the cost of coverage will rise correspondingly.
There wasn’t any judicial branch, but Congress had the authority to arbitrate disputes between states. Congress was responsible for conducting foreign affairs, declaring war or peace, maintaining an army and navy and a variety of other lesser functions. But the articles denied Congress the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce and enforce laws. Because of this, the central government had to request donations from the states to finance its operations and raise armed forces. The states attempted to limit the power of the national government because they feared that it would become a monarchy.
September 17, 1787, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; during the heat of summer, in a stuffy assembly room of Independence Hall, a group of delegates gathered. After four months of closed-door quorums, a four page, hand written document was signed by thirty-nine attendees of the Constitutional Convention. This document, has come to be considered, by many, the framework to the greatest form of government every known; the Constitution of the United States. One of the first of its kind, the Constitution laid out the frame work for the government we know today. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people; constructed of three branches; each branch charged with their own responsibilities. Article one established the Congress or Legislative branch, which would be charged with legislative powers. Article two created the Executive branch, providing chief executive powers to a president, who would act in the capacity of Commander in Chief of the Country’s military forces. The President of the United States also acts as head of state to foreign nations and may establish treaties and foreign policies. Additionally, the President and the departments within the Executive branch were established as the arm of government that is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress. Thirdly, under Article three of the Constitution, the Judicial branch was established, and consequently afforded the duty of interpreting the laws, determining the constitutionality of the laws, and apply it to individual cases. The separation of powers is paramount to the system of checks and balances among the three branches; however, although separate they must support the functions of the others. Because of this, the Legislative an...
The Constitution bestowed essential powers to the nation, without which, America would crumble. Under this newly created document, three different branches of government were created: the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive. The legislative was composed of Congress, which now had the power to create a military, control interstate and international commerce, and create laws. The Judicial branch was the Supreme Court, which would review the decision of the President (in the executive branch...
The Supreme Court, which sees almost 150 petitions per week, called cert petitions, must carefully select the cases that they want to spend their time and effort on (Savage 981). If they didn’t select them carefully, the nine justices would quickly be overrun, so they have put in place a program to weed through the court cases to pick out the small number they will discuss. There are a few criteria that are used to judge whether or not a case will be tried. The first is whether or not the lower courts decided the case based on another one of the Supreme Court’s decisions for they will investigate these in order to withhold or draw back their conclusion that they made in their court case. Another is the case’s party alignment: sometimes the justices will pick cases that will align with their party beliefs, like trying to get a death row inmate off of his death sentence. They also make claims about the “life” of the case- the Supreme Court only hears “live” cases- they do not try to go back in time and re-mark a case that has long since been decided (Savage 981). Lastly, they like to take cases where the lower courts did not decide with one another -these cases can have t o do with interpretations of the law that have been left up to the lower courts and should be specifically defined by the Supreme Court (Savage 982).
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1787 and it established the powers of the federal government. Its intended purpose was to protect individual rights and liberties. It constructed the three branches of government that we know today: Executive, legislative and judicial. These branches created a separation of powers, in addition to check and balances. Originally, the judicial branch did not have much power when the constitution was written. It was not until the case of Marbury v Madison in 1803 that it actually established the judicial review. The judicial review is what gave the federal courts a great deal of power to void acts of Congress that they deemed violates the Constitution. After this case, the Supreme Court Justices
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
In 1789, the final draft of the constitution of the United States came into effect. In article three it calls for "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In the article it neither says the duties, powers, or any organization of the supreme court. If left this up to congress and to the justices of the court itself for these details.
The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people
In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the country, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that naturally. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. Federal Government was not generally appreciated and its formation also caused many disagreements and debates.
"U.S. Judge Rules Health Care Reform Act Unconstitutional | Business Insurance." Business Insurance News, Analysis & Articles. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. .
In March 2010, under the Obama administration, the United States enacted major health-care reform. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 expands coverage to the majority of uninsured Americans, through: (a) subsidies aimed at lower-income individuals and families to purchase coverage, (b) a mandate that most Americans obtain insurance or face a penalty,