Essay On Legal Power

1) Since the injured plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, why is Ford being sued for failing to test the seatbelt sleeve?

The state is supreme. All that is, within the state, is brought to fulfillment in the state. Nothing that is, within the state, can be permitted to exist beyond the reaches of the state. Nothing that is, within the state, can be permitted to go against the state. It is the final resting-place of all that man has created.

Article VI, Clause 2 (National Supremacy Clause) – The Federal Government, in expressing any of the powers

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

The Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. While in this particular matter, the statutes of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would generally trump the state level regulations of organizations such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB), however the EPA has also mandated that “The setting of these pollutant standards was coupled with directing the states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs), applicable to appropriate industrial sources in the state, in order to achieve these standards.” (EPA, 2015) The standards in questions are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

A state court may respond in various ways to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that raises issues of federal

The power of the federal courts to decide civil disputes between citizens of different states, provided the amount the plaintiff seeks in damages exceeds an amount set by Congress (currently $75,000). The so-called citizens may include companies incorporated or doing business in different

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal

Who gets what when it comes to jurisdiction, how do you tell if it’s a state matter or a federal matter? Whether state or federal there are strict jurisdictions that both state and federal has to follow. From subject and personal jurisdiction, to the three types of personal jurisdiction. Each court has set boundaries that govern their rights. Without these rights there would be no subject matter. No one would go to the appreciate courts or have the correct measures to even known which court they are supposed to go to. But weather federal or state jurisdiction is going to take part in each case.

I feel the system is biased because there are inequalities among the representation and participation of interest groups and constituents in the political system. Unfortunately, poor and uneducated citizens aren’t as organized as interest groups, lobbyists and PACs because they lack the money, resources and connections necessary to influence congress members on legislative bills. It is evident that, “businesses, interest groups and labor unions are spending more than $100 million a month to lobby the federal government”(Associated Press, SFC, 3/7/98). “The actual population of interest groups in Washington surely reflects that there is a class bias in the membership of interest groups”(JBG).

We further find persuasive decisions arising from the courts of other jurisdictions that have, by an overwhelming majority, refused to endorse the usurpation of the jurisdiction of a court with concurrent jurisdiction via the failure to permit the matter to be resolved in its original forum. See, e.g., First Midwest Corp. v. Corp. Fin. Assoc., 663 N. W. 2d 888, 892-93 (Iowa 2003) (holding that it was an abuse of discretion to deny stay while matter was pending in neighboring state) (citing Waicker, supra, 347 Md. at 115); Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc’y, 549 N.W.2d 172, 176 (Neb. 1996) (holding that “entertaining [a] declaratory judgment action was an abuse of discretion” where same issue were pending in West Virginia); Simmons v. Superior Court in and for L.A. Cnty., 214 P.2d 844, 848-49 (1950) (“The fruits of the recognition of the rule of comity have been so beneficient, when applied to courts of concurrent jurisdiction created by differed sovereignties, as to justify the conclusion that it is not only a rule of comity, but one of necessity.” (internal quotations omitted)); Phelps v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Ass’n, 112 F. 453, 465-66 (6th Cir. 1901) (“It is a rule of almost universal application that, between courts of the same sovereignty and concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first acquires jurisdiction of the controversy . . . should be suffered by every other court to decide every question within the sphere of the pending cause . . . .”). These persuasive

“The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” This quote is from James Madison, one of the most prominent, influential founding fathers that was delivered at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. This is a statement that remains relevant even today. It says as long as the government has power it will always be vulnerable to abuse, a sentiment that is frequently seen throughout the course of American history. Madison’s wary view of governmental power is something that is seen in many aspects of America’s distinct identity. An identity that consists of various elements such as the ability to compromise within the government, a capitalist economy that generally benefits wealthy elites, and a fixation on the country’s military. These attributes to the country’s identity were all formed after the year 1787. Therefore, the American identity that is widely acknowledged today was not formed when America declared independence, but was instead created when America formed a strong national government and united the interests of the previously individual state governments. This is supported by both The American Yawp and From Colony to World Power: A History of the United States despite the expanse of time between each textbook’s publishing. The American Yawp is an online history textbook that was last modified in August of 2016, in contrast to From Colony to World Power which was published in 1953. Both books

Throughout the United States there are many different laws among the fifty states that make up this union. The laws are different throughout the states because of the need of the laws. Living in one state and not having the advantages or disadvantages of a law in another state would not be that unfair or unequal. This is true because if you don’t like a law in your state you could always fight it and try to change it or you could always move out of that state and go to one that has the laws that you like.

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. said it the best in his speech to the Text & Teaching Symposium, "We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as Twentieth Century Americans." Justice Brennan also called the Constitution a fundamentally public text and called for its use to resolve public issues. If that is true, then the document must be interpreted from today's perspective - Judicial Activism. However, using only that approach would be saying that the work of the original framers was mute. This document is over two hundred years old and still very relevant to today's society. In my opinion, the court needs to find a fine line between activism and restraint or intentionalism

The enactment of both interim and final Constitutions ushered in a new approach to statutory interpretation. In this essay I argue that the statement made by the court in Daniels v Campbell 2003 (9) BCLR 969 ( C ) at 985 is TRUE.