Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Constitution article 1
Constitution article 1
Constitution article 1
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Constitution article 1
From their establishment to current times, recess appointments have become a far cry from their original intention created the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. When America was founded, the Constitution was created to withstand the test of time. Article I, section II of the Constitution gives the vested president the power to “nominate, and by advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint all ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and judges of the Supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States”, it also states that the president has the “power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions that shall expire at the end of their next session.” This was deliberately added to the vague description of the president to keep positions filled when the Senate would only in session for less than half of the year. The president needed to keep the government running smoothly, even when Senate was not …show more content…
The rise of the use of recess appointments has led the Senate to come up with unjust practices to keep the president from having an opening to recess appoint. Pro-forma sessions were created by Senate democrats to stop President George W. Bush from making recess appointments. Pro-forma sessions were an open Senate floor to start business for the Senate. However, only one senator was needed to bang the gavel into a meeting. These sessions could be as short at thirty seconds. This would deny the President from being able to make any recess appointments, because the Senate would not be in recess, although most members were not in for the session and no votes could be held. These pro-forma sessions are a deceitful way to keep the President from fairly appointing in Senate
The idea of a Triple E senate did not come into play until the legislation was passed under Pierre Trudeau about the National Energy Program (NEP) due to the energy crisis the 1970s. This was a welcome change for the eastern provinces, but created tension from Alberta with its natural resources, and became unpopular in the whole of western Canada, creating the idea of ‘western alienation.’ (Canada needs triple e reform, 2013) With the NEP, Alberta began to quickly call for changes in the federal government for more regional issues to have a better platform in federal government, finally proposing Triple E Senate. A year later polls such as the Gallip Poll in 1986 were used to show the popularity of the idea of senate reform, with support from
Filibusters can surely be effective for Senate minority leaders. However, it can have both its pros and cons. Some of the advantages include that the filibuster was created to protect the privileges of the Senators in order to fully debate and modify laws in the United States Senate, therefore securing the concern of all the citizens in America. Filibusters tend to exist thanks to the Founding Fathers ideology of designing a democratic government in which politicians became involved and educated throughout many political processes. Whenever a Senator goes on the Senate floor and talks endlessly for hours on a particular issue, it automatically engages attention to the particular matter, such as the 11-hour filibuster Senator Wendy Davis accomplished
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
The 15th Amendment was an law added to the United States Constitution in 1870 that gave citizens the right to vote no matter their race, skin color, or previous conditions of servitude. This specifically applied to African American males who, though technically were citizens under the 14th amendment, were still being oppressed and restricted from voting. According to Angela Davis in her text, while some feminist activists in the 19th century supported this amendment, others were adamantly opposed to it. These activists were both males and females and many of them had been or were distinguished figures in the abolitionist movement. Supporters argued that African American men had as much of a right as anyone to vote and shouldn 't be denied that right simply because women were, while antagonists argued that until women
Presidential power has become a hot topic in the media the in recent years. There has been extensive debate about what a president should be able to do, especially without the involvement of Congress and the American people. While this debate has become more publicized since the Bush administration, similar issues of presidential power date back to Truman and the Korean War. As with much of the structure of the U.S. government, the powers of the president are constantly evolving with the times and the executives.
By taking the oath required, “Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God” (U.S. Code), the federal court judges are then protected by the other branches in the system. The other branches are not to have an influence in the judge’s decision. With the federal court judges being as protected as they are it means that they are free to make any decision they feel is right under the law without worrying about consequences. Which I personally think is fair because the federal court judges have to make decisions that society may not agree with, but it is what is best. Protection allows the judges to have free range of their decisions because it is going to better the society. The federal court judges have nothing to fear, they are safe in their decisions which I
The Honorable Jonathan Yates, former deputy general counsel for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the U. S. House of Representatives, writes, “This lifetime term now enjoyed by justices not only contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, it counters the role intended for the court as a minor player in the equal judiciary branch of government. Term limits are needed to adjust the part of the court to the intent of the founding fathers” (Np). Judge Yates explains that the greatest powers of the Supreme Court did not originate from the Constitution or Congress, but from their own rulings (Np). The most prominent of which, was being Marbury v. Madison, in which the court granted itself judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation (Yates). Furthermore, the intended role of the court by the founding fathers was so small, that it did not have a home, or meet to hear any cases (Yates). An amendment to the Constitution removing the lifetime tenure of U.S. Supreme Court judges needs consideration by Congress. Lifetime tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court has led to four points that could not have been foreseen by the creators of the Constitution. The first problem resulting from the Supreme Court’s tenure policy is that judges’ are holding on to their seats, disregarding debilitating health issues. The second issue that has arisen from lifetime tenure is the use of strategic retirement by sitting judges to ensure a like-minded replacement. The third development resulting from lifetime tenure is the steady decrease in case decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fourth and final effect lifetime tenure has had on the Supreme Court is an increase in celebrity status of the judges, which has le...
appointed by Congress who could be removed on the request of a majority of the state
This has been one of the most fascinating political seasons in recent history. The level of discourse and potential scandals on both sides has increased my attention level. Rather you support either of these candidates, both the fringe candidates from the left and the right both have struck a chord with a lot of people. Whether either of them wins their party’s nomination and becomes the president is still left to be decided. Mainstream political pundits and major social institutions have either condemned or flatly said that some of these candidates’ proposals are not feasible, but to the electorate that doesn’t seem to matter. There has been a lot of commotion about a brokered Republican convention even though it seems that there will be one
Congress should pass an amendment that requires a staggered 18-year term limit on the tenure of Supreme Court justices. Under this proposal, each justice would serve for 18 years, and the terms would be established so that there is a vacancy every two years. The vacancies would be on the first and third years of the presidential term. This would allow enough time so the senate would pass this nomination through and the president would not be denied one of his two appointees. The
Special rules and new floor procedures have been institutionalized. Although the external political environment of the House is as electrifying as that of the Senate, it is based on a very different body of basic rules. The individualist Senate, a body in which senators aggressively exploited the great Congressional privileges these rules gave them, as she argues, to further their own individual ends. In fact, nowadays, the process of lawmaking in a chamber with non-majoritarian rules and with members so accustomed to exploiting those rules fully is reasonably expected to drag on for months, if not
Initially, the Founders intended to have a limit on the amount of time any one person could serve. In the Articles of Confederation, a rotation in office system was described, so that no one person could remain in a position for decades on end. However, this was abandoned in the Constitution because it was deemed unnecessary. At the time of the nation’s founding, the occupation of “politician” did not exist. One could hold an office for a number of years, but it was not considered a career path. Originally, politicians were seen as making great sacrifices, because they stepped away from their family and primary jobs for a number of years to serve their country, before returning to their normal lives (Vance, 1994, p. 429). In the words of Founding Father Roger Sherman, “The representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of the government, they will acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those...
as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate
Executive orders are issued by the president and it is mainly a way to force a law into action. Executive orders go way back into history and are as old at the U.S. Constitution themselves. These orders were and are still currently being used by every president in our history all the way from George Washington to President Donald Trump. Executive orders stand as long as the current president wants them to and when a new president comes in they then have the power to cancel it. The most executive orders that were in place go back to Franklin Roosevelt’s days when he brought 3,522 different orders into play that he felt we needed in the country. Executive orders will be along for as long as everyone lives and will continue to be used by every
As many budget cuts occur on the governmental level for myriad of reasons, public education can begin to suffer. As this has started to happen with the trillions of dollars of debt accrued by the United States Government many schools have had to cut non-academic classes from their curriculum to correct for the lack of funds. Some of the classes cut due to these funding cuts are vocational classes such as home economics, cooking, wood/metal shop classes, drivers education, and other such trade education. This lack of vocational education is leading to less rounded citizens coming out of public education. I do not personally believe that funding cuts to public education is ever necessary, if anything we should add funds to public schools as an investment in the future of the country by raising the literacy and overall competency of the average citizen. Of all the ways to solve this problem I decided that vocational school or vocational course integration are the best solutions. Though I lean toward vocational course integration I will address the pros and cons of both approaches to this issue.