Explain Why The Supreme Court Should Not Receive Additional Powers

Discuss the view that the power of the Supreme Court cannot be justified in a

Two powers denied from Congress in the Constitution is the power to pass laws, if the president had not already vetoed them, and the Congress is also denied the power to give people certain titles. I guess that’s the president’s job. For example, the president, not congress, get to decide who is going to be the supreme court judge.

Beforehand, I had just viewed the Supreme Court has a high up court system that did things the way that they did simply because they were the Supreme Court and could do things their way. However, I was very unaware as to the corruption and how out of control things have become over recent years. While the Supreme Court is a high up court, everything should still be decided with the people’s will as the main factor, unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Having power does not grant one the ability to appear as superior to the Constitution and its original intentions. Of course, the original founders did not have the intention for the Supreme Court to end up with the amount of distorted power that it has today.

The Supreme Court's decisions under John Marshall's leadership at the time, did not extend federal power too much because his opinions were needed to resolve and unite the states. The amount of power he had at the time was appropriate for the situation. The Supreme Court has an important role in out American government though, to lay the final decision in few peoples hands is giving them way to much power. The Supreme Court has a significant amount of influence on many important legal issues for our country, why do we give that much authority to individuals who are appointed for life without being elected?

Why did the framers of the United States Constitution ultimately decide to give more power to the federal government, rather than the state governments? There are many reasons for the decisions that people make or previously made in our history. Many of these reasons are discussed later in this document, such as the Articles of Confederation, Federal Government, State Government, Constitutions contents about Federal and State power.

(at least three each) The president must also have approval from Congress before enacting treaties with or he can also declare war on foreign countries. Although the president has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, the appointments must be approved by the legislative branch. In the judicial branch, justices cannot be kicked out by the president once confirmed by congress. 5.

However, if the President had to only stick by what was said in the Constitution, the position would be very weak, which is not the case today. The Constitution states that the President can make treaties if two-thirds of the Senate agrees, appoint members, give Congress suggestions, and be the Commander In Chief, but that was not solely the Founding Father’s intentions. According to Chief Justice Marshall,

The judicial power shall be “vested” in the one Supreme Court. The US Constitution uses separation of powers to prevent all that power in the hands of one

However, some ways the president’s power gets limited includes needing the approval of the Senate for treaties and appointing government officials, not being able to officially declare war, and not being able to make any laws as their own opinion unless they make an executive order. The Constitution gave these powers to the president so the executive branch limits what the Congress can do. For example, if the president does not gain the veto law power, the Congress would force the president to sign all laws passed by the Congress. As a result, the Congress would be similar to the British monarch when they tightened control over the 13 colonies, making laws that only benefits themselves. Article 2 section 2 lists the powers of the president, and how the president gets limited on

Established in 1789, the Supreme Court was created to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and to use that interpretation to declare any actions of the Legislative or Executive Branches unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court was capable of also acquiring more functions as evidence of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The case dealt with President John Adams appointing sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Colombia. Adams appointed these justices so that his political party would have more justices than the rival party. Problematically, the appointment letters were not delivered by the end of his term. By that basis, President Thomas Jefferson annulled the appointments because he retained the right to appoint the justices during his time of jurisdiction. Consequently, this aggravated the appointed justice and therefore one of the justices named William Marbury filed a case in the Supreme Court over the commissions that they were promised (Goldstone). The Court ruled that Marbury did have a right to commission and also with it made a statement that enacted the doctrine of Judicial Review. This meant that the court had the "right to review, and possibly nullify, laws and governmental acts that violate the constitution. Judicial Review is a means of assuring that politicians and various other leaders adhere to the constitution and do not use powers granted to them by

The Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.

Presidential power has increased immensely over recent years and little is being done in an attempt to restore the original intent of the Constitution. There are multiple factors that affect this, including the executive orders of presidents, the Constitution giving an unequal distribution of power between the executive and legislative branch, the failure to use checks and balances, and the ineffectiveness of Congress. With the lack of congressional involvement in legislative decisions, the president has the ability to take matters in their own hands.

The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy.

The founders thought it politically precise, that the Senate got final discretion in any and all Supreme Court Justice governing, not only are they the ultimate vote but the president does not have as much supremacy as they do in this particular zone. The Senate must approve all things, no matter what the president attempts to pass, the president always has the option to veto but the Senate is in complete control, there is a reason the founders gave the branches this type of power. First, the accumulation of all that power at once would be too much of a load for the president not only that but one single human being having all the power, threatens the liberty of all others, it gets to the point where it is no longer a government but a tyranny. So the founders were well acquainted with how to make an ideal state, the concept they had in mind, to have three distinct functions of government has operated perfectly thus far. There are things that cannot work smoothly all together, so that’s where the three branches of Senate come into action, legislative, the law-making, executive the law-enforcing part and judicial the law interpretation part of government, these essential principles of our

Additionally, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party…” Although they have major decisions in cases, the most important power of the judicial branch of government is judicial review. Judicial review is the ability to declare laws unconstitutional. They interprate the laws that Congress creates and they have the power to declare that a law is void because it violates the U.S Constitution. Regardless of this power, the Congress can amend the Constitution to make the law Constitutional. Granted this, “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury…” (“Constitution”). The Supreme Court can handle any cases other than impeachment trials because the third section of the first article in the Constitution states that “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…” Thus, the Supreme Court’s power to hearing a case is also limited by the