If A Person Gains Personal Enhancement Through Prominence

1) Why does Kennedy refer to the case of Marbury vs. Madison as “epochal?” Describe the short and long-term ramifications to the decision.

Now it was not so much the court’s decision that was so damaging, but the series of opinions that Roger Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and how we look at it. The court had announced its

The decisions of justices have "altered behavior of political and governmental officials as well as a man walking down the street"(Miller 4). To understand

Roosevelt entered his fourth term as the president of the United States, breaking the unspoken two term limit for presidency set by George Washington and respected by thirty others after him. Within the piece, the author elaborated how the people had placed their trust and faith in their first president to lead the country, ultimately deciding not to establish a legal restriction in the Constitution. In the fifth paragraph, the author warned that national security could be threatened by an intelligent and sound president with unlimited presidential tenure, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt. (“Let Us Limit Presidential Tenure”) The selected column was an opinion piece aimed at raising awareness to the public. The article was clearly biased in the form of favoring the proposed amendment as opposed to taking a neutral stance on the issue. After reading the item, it left the impression of urgency on the reader, claiming that only written law can establish rules and keep traditions as opposed to an informal one. During this period in time, Republicans were in support the new amendment while Democrats were in opposition, leading to the conclusion that the author sided with the Republican’s as they were for limiting government and a large proponent for constitutional rights. (“Presidential Tenure and

Each year, the United States Supreme Court “receives approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year” and “hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases” (supreme court). With the number of petitions reaching 5 figures every year it can be implied that each case will be chosen, decided, and enforced in a legitimate way. However, history has shown that this is not always the circumstance. Specifically, President Andrew Jackson’s remark regarding Worcester v. Georgia created an argument questioning the justification of the courts. This significant case as well as the court cases Brown v. Board of Education, Ex Parte Merryman, Roe v. Wade, U.S v. Nixon, and present how the legitimacy of the U.S court system

Nixon attempted to take the case through the districts courts who rejected privilege, Nixon then decided to appeal. Taking the case to the appellate courts that also denied suit as non-justiciable political question; the Supreme Court granted certiorari. However, the court decided that the previous court’s ruling was affirmed. (The Oyez Project, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

Issue: The issue of this case is substantial in nature. The question is if the President has the privilege, regarding of Article II in the United States Constitution, to stand above the law and not follow instructions given to him by the Supreme Court.

This case was a case for the ages that challenged the very decision of our newly elected president. The former President Adam after a grueling election has lost and in order to maintain the legacy of the Federalist, he began to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. These judges were appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but unfortunately for these justices, the letters that confirmed the appointment never reached the potential justices. Adams was working quickly to push the appointments through, but unfortunately he ran out of time and Jefferson took office. Jefferson saw the appointment letters on his desk and discarded them. One of the potential justices was William Marbury and he sued the president for his Supreme Court appointment. His goal was to have the court to order a writ of mandamus, which if completed, would order a government official to fulfil their official duties.

Media sensationalism creates an interesting phenomenon; more often than not, the comments made by varying levels of popular culture stars become catch phrases, buzz words, and the be-all end-all definition of an individual. These occurrences happen, for better or worse, and an individual becomes intrinsically linked to those statements for the rest of their living life and well after. Sometimes these comments are uplifting and promote the betterment of man; but sometimes they serve to berate or belittle a group as well, often times with very little thought being put into what has been disseminated. In either case, they are merely the opinions of an individual who happens to be famous. At times, the subject of opinion may hold little

Determining and defining the boundaries of the war powers of Congress and the President can be exceedingly abstruse, and it continues to vex the court system into the modern era. Moreover, this is exacerbated by the fact that the political quarrels between the President and Congress continue to permeate into the judicial system. The courts cannot adjudicate political issues, and it is not the appropriate institution to do so. Interpreting the law and deciding legal issues is within the purview of the courts not political questions. This dispute must be resolved between the President and Congress. Petitioner, Sen. Robert Haskel, argues that President Sonja Adams violated Article I Section 8, the declaration of war clause, of the U.S. Constitution.

Another important case study to be discussed is the Harper and Row versus Nation Enterprises. This case was held during 1985 and it was a United State Supreme Court case. The main issue that occurred during this case was that Gerald Ford who was a pervious president published a book. Later he came to find out that the magazine called Nation published about 400 of his writing word for word. This case was considered to be fair use (49). This is wrong to do because no consent was received from the author.

Antonin Scalia, who is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, wrote A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law in 1997. Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice since he is currently the longest-serving justice on the Court. Scalia was born in New Jersey, but attended public grade school and catholic high school in New York City. Later, he moved onto attending undergraduate school at Georgetown University, and then receiving his LL.B degree from Harvard Law School. After many years of teaching, serving in the Nixon and Ford administrations and advising, Ronald Reagan appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1986 to fill an open seat and has been there ever since. In 1997, Scalia decided to write A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law. This first part of the book is an essay titled "Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws,” which talks about Scalia arguing that the common-law outlook is not appropriate for statutory and constitutional interpretation. The second part of the book includes responses from scholars who have read Scalia’s essay. These responses include diversity throughout their reactions, which makes the third part of the book even more interesting. The third part of the book concludes with Scalia’s responses to each of the comments, questions and statements that were directed toward him or his essay.

ing perplexing questions concerning the law of treason, was the more vexatious to Marshall for reopening the quarrel between the Jefferson administration and the federal judiciary, as played out earlier in the controversy over Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. No one was more fully attuned to the awkward dilemma he faced in conducting this high-profile case. To maintain a posture of strict judicial impartiality was a duty that was at once imperative and exceedingly difficult to fulfill in the highly charged political atmosphere of the time.

In the article Utah Girl Bullied About Large Ears Gets Free Surgery From Big-Hearted Surgeon Who Was Also Teased as a Kid which got published on July 2, 2015, The character which I really admired is Steven Mobley who is a Salt lake City plastic surgeon who was teased about his own large ears growing up – Isabelle doesn't feel self-conscious any longer. He is a really an amazing surgeon and he deserves to be a doctor because the doctor job is helping other people. What he did to Isabelle Stark who got Bullied At high school from her friends because she had large ears, he made a surgery for her ears for free. He made her ears looks so perfect and have a perfect curve. She was really happy about it and that now she does not have to hide her ears

In conclusion, the Supreme Court, even to this day, uses this case as an example as to their power to interpret the constitution and review cases. The Supreme Court has been the deciding factor in many cases that have changed and protected the rights of the people thanks to Chief Justice John