Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of the supreme court in us
Role of the supreme court
Role of the supreme court
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of the supreme court in us
Introduction The Supreme Court first considered Article III's "case or controversy" limitation on the judicial power when President George Washington forwarded to the Court a request for guidance as to how best to maintain neutrality, during an outbreak of hostilities between England and France, consistent with international law and treaties to which the United States was a party. Chief Justice Jay responded by informing the President that the Court was without power to help (the President had said he would be "much relieved" if the Court answered his questions). Jay said that the Constitution authorized the Court to interpret the law only in the context of a real case or controversy--it had no power to render an advisory opinion about the law. (Note that this limitation on the judicial power is not shared by many state supreme courts, which often do issue advisory opinions.) STANDING Among the essential elements of what the Court considers a case or controversy is an injured plaintiff. The requirement that a plaintiff show that he or she has suffered "injury in fact" is a key requirement of the Court's doctrine of standing. (Note: Since standing is necessary to establish jurisdiction, courts will undertake to examine the issue even if not raised by either of the parties.) Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case--or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court--, the requirements for standing are tightened. The standing doctrine consists both of constitutionally-derived rules and judicially-created gatekeeping ("prudential") rules. The Court has found Article III to require that plaintiffs demonstrate injury-in-fact, that the injury in question is fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged action, and that the injury is one that could be redressed by a favorable decision. Standing has been an issue when taxpayers have challenged expenditures of general tax revenues. In 1923, in Frothingham v Mellon, the Court announced that a taxpayer's mere ideological opposition to an alleged illegal expenditure of federal tax revenue failed to provide a sufficient basis for standing. In Flast v Cohen (1968), however, the Court found that Florene Flast had standing as a taxpayer to challenge as a unconstitutional exercise of the taxing and spending power the use of federal dollars to pay for instructional materials in religious schools.
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
In Federalist no. 78 Hamilton explains the powers and duties of the judiciary department as developed in Article III of the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution is very vague on the structure of the federal courts. Hamilton had to convince Americans that the federal courts would not run amok. He presented that the federal courts would not have unlimited power but that they would play a vital role in the constitutional government. Hamilton limited judiciary power by defining it as a text-bound interpretative power. (R.B Bernstein) This essay was intended to endorse as well as interpret the Constitution.
1. The court stated that they did have power to hear this case: "Since the court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers."
Stand your ground law is a self-defense law that authorize a person to protect and defend one’s own life. Only few states in the U.S including Florida (2005) pass this law. On April 30, 2013 George Zimmerman waives his rights to a “stand your ground” pretrial immunity hearing as CNN states. His attorneys decides to try this as a “self-defends’ case. Judge will have to decide if his actions were protected under the
*referred to in order to determine such cases as the validity of a contract or whether or not someone was guilty of murder
was Burger, and he reaffirmed that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The Supreme Court is the superior symbol of the U.S. law, so it has duties to protect the justice t...
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
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.
Stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that allow an individual to use deadly force if he/she felt that their life is in grave danger. The Controversy behind Stand-your-ground law is often criticized for encouraging violence. Critics claim that the laws lead to a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude that results in more injuries and deaths than would occur without the law. Stand-your-ground law was passed by the former Florida governor Jeb Bush in 2005. Afterward, many other states have followed mostly the Republican States. The laws expand on the "Castle doctrine," which says that a person is protected under the law to use deadly force in self-defense when his or her property or home is being invaded.
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 stand your ground law is a law that allows people to defend themselves in a suspicious situation somewhere they are legally allowed before having to retreat the area. This law was derived from the Castle Doctrine, which states the person legally residing in that dwelling has a right to protect themselves if someone on or in their residence threatens their livelihood. Florida was the first state of the United States to implement the sand your ground law into their state laws in 2005. Former Florida governor, Jeb Bush, passed the Florida statute to help the citizens protect themselves in the midst of a dangerous situation. This law became a controversial topic when the Trayvon Martin case was the central subject matter of every media outlet
The Stand Your Ground Law is a highly debated, as well as controversial topic. The Stand Your Ground Law is law that admits an individual to stand their ground instead of retreating if they reasonably believe doing so is necessary to “prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” (Sullivan 2013) Many people agree with the law because they feel they have the right to be able to protect themselves. On the other hand, many people feel the Stand Your Ground Law is only a way to kill and get away with it. Do you know which side you are on when it comes to this particular issue? In this essay, I will address and discuss both pros and cons on the Stand Your Ground Law topic. These pros and cons will lead to the conclusion that no matter what side you are on about these laws, they need advised.
Stand your ground is a subject that has been plastered in many community’s backyards across the nation, a subject that has left many senseless killings. Self-defense has two laws that represent and explains the two perspectives of views. The Castle Doctrine laws strengthen the right to self-defense by eliminating the duty to retreat from a threat in one’s own home or on one’s own property, so when one build on that concept they come up with stand your ground laws which extends the Castle Doctrine, any place where a person has the right
The Constitution has been around for 228 years since the ratification, which is a long time. Times are very different now as compared to those, many years ago. Today, the world is different in so many aspects such as technological and medical advances, population growth, and minorities rising. These are things that the founding fathers would have never thought to be possible. So nowadays, the Supreme Court has to interpret the Constitution a lot more to be able to decide on subject matters because they have a hard time relating today’s problems to back then. For instance, the Third Amendment which states that citizens will not be forced into providing their home as shelter to the soldiers is not really useful today because it was created for
1.The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case…