Jennifer Eagan's Deliberative Democracy?

When the Constitution of the United States of America was signed and ratified the people had a self sustaining government made up of three equal, but distinct, branches. The legislative branch, made up of a House of Representatives and Senate; The executive branch, which includes the President, Vice President, and the executive cabinet members; Finally, the judicial branch, consisting of the state and federal courts. The framers believed that all three branches in theory, would work together to govern not only for the good of the people, but for the good of the states, and the nation as a whole. Similarly to today, the framers had two camps that held different ideologies as to how a government should execute its

The concept of power is a divisive matter in the American political system, as the actors holding it are sometimes unable to impose it as a result of their limited authority to do so. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches in the national government depend on each-others point of view. Part of the Constitution was designed with the purpose of making it impossible for either of these three to become more powerful than the others. Each of them has the ability to check and balance the way that the other two function. In spite of the fact that this system was created with the intention of preventing power from being shared unequally in the country, it sometimes serves as a tool for political gridlock, considering that the judicial branches can debate in regard to a particular topic for unlimited amounts of time before actually reaching a conclusion regarding the respective issue.

The first and most fundamental division of our government is “federalism or the constitutional allocation of governmental powers between the federal and state governments” (24). Throughout the years federalism has changed from what it was first described in the constitution. Contemporary federalism is what is used in our modern government, and with the dilemmas that we have now a more centralized government has been used, which was not planned when our government was created. The second division is separation of powers. This division has a major impact on public policies. The constitution “distributes the powers of the federal government among three branches, each capable of applying checks and balances to the other two” (29). These three divisions can either work together, which makes policymaking smooth and able to get things done, or they can veto each other which makes policymaking harder and nothing gets done. The third division is subgovernments, or can also be described as iron triangles. This division has three actors involved the first is interest groups, the second is congressional committees or subcommittees, and the third is the administrative agency (31-33). These actors work off each other to help get policies implemented. These three division help compose our public policies in the United States.

Have you ever wondered which branch of government was the most powerful? There are three branches of government but not all of them have the same power. Well if you didn't know the most important branch is the judicial branch. Even though all the branches are powerful,but at different times, The judicial branch has the final say in the use of power because it can overturn rulings by other judges ,they Can rule that an presidential action or law is unconstitutional , and the supreme court cannot be fired by the president.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation and is responsible for being the impartial judge in interpreting the law of the land. One of the biggest struggles the Court can face is having to rule for what is constitutional over what is morally right. This is not referring to Plessy v. Ferguson where we only know it was morally wrong in hindsight. This is referring to a case where the judges knew fully well that what had happened was a tragedy and an injustice yet, they had to rule against what any normal human being would vote for. Imagine the difficulty in that. Now, imagine the public backlash when it was announced. The conflict of morality vs. constitutionality in the Court in the case of DeShaney v Winnebago County is apparent

The Supreme Court often oversteps its perceived legal sovereignty when using judicial review. Article III of the Constitution solely vests the courts the “judicial power of the United States” never mentioning the power of judicial review. The judiciary’s duty, according to the law of the land, is “to interpret the laws, not scan the authority of the lawgiver” (Gibson, J.). The judiciary has not followed a strict interpretation of the constitution; rather, it has encroached on the power of the legislative branch and the sanctity of the separation of powers. If the Constitution “were to come into collision with an act of the legislature” (Gibson, J.), the Constitution would take precedent, but it is

“It matters enormously to a successful democratic society like ours that we have three branches of government, each with some independence and some control over the other two. That 's set out in the Constitution.”(Sandra Day O’connor). In order for a government that is for the people and by the people to survive the government has to change with its people. This is seen by the United states government. While it still has the three branches originally established, the branches have changed with themselves and with how they interact with each other.

The United States judicial branch to the general American public can seem insulated from politics, because of their adversarial system, that does not allow judges to choose their cases. The judicial branch unlike, their two counterparts, the legislative and executive at large rely on the respect of the American people and the heads of the two other branches. In appointing members of the federal judiciary, Presidents appoint members who resemble their political ideologies and their likelihood of confirmation in the Senate, the Senate confirms these members based on their performance on the litmus test and Senatorial courtesy. Courts, specifically the Supreme Court, make decisions based on the Constitution, but the legislative branch has the

Like nature, the United States government has evolved to meet the demands of an ever growing population, the increasing terrorist threat, and a new state of mind in terms of what government should look like. Each branch of the federal system plays a key role in controlling the populace. The Executive branch handles day-to-day maintenance of the federal government, makes sure laws are enforced and carried out, as well as represents the U.S. to foreign interests. The Legislative branch passes laws and allocates funds for use in running the federal government and providing assistance to the states. The Judicial branch hears cases that involve disputes between interpretations of the laws or those that challenge them. A delicate balance

The United States government consists of three main branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Within the contents of this essay, the judicial branch will be examined. The judicial branch of the United States government oversees justice throughout the country by expounding and applying laws by means of a court system.1 This system functions by hearing and determining the legality of such cases.2 Sitting at the top of the United States court system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States encompasses the federal judiciary, explicitly the judicial branch. This court is comprised of life-long serving Justices who are selected by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.3 Cooperatively,

The process of the court granting writ of certiorari deals with the appeal of the case and then traveling through the appellate courts until it finally reaches the Supreme Court.

During his opening statement, Scalia employs rhetorical questions in order to elucidate that Americans’ lack of knowledge of the government forces judges to firmly abide by the United States’ unparalleled Constitution. He postulates, “How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?” The reality that “never more than about 5%” of his audience, who are “interested in the law,” has delved deep into the document portrays them as ignorant. With this concern, Scalia expounds upon his originalist ideals and encourages rivaling judges to alter their opinions of a flexible Constitution. Scalia credits his argument through the Framers who illustrated the significance of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Due to the fact that Americans are incapable of thoroughly interpreting the government, he attests that judges must abide by the precise words of the Constitution. Scalia advises his audience to

Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review (Supreme Court Decisions, 2015).

Tushnet’s book helps teach why the Supreme Court has ruled the way it has. In 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges legalized homosexual marriage, this would not have been possible 30 years ago. Tushnet describes this in his book, the Supreme Court doesn’t always go with whether the subject is constitutional or not, public opinion, and whoever is president at the time, determines mostly how the court rules on most decisions. In many Supreme Court cases, cases pass or fail due to a 5-4 vote, this further helps Tushnet’s case that The Court Justices hold their own personal political agendas.

To use Hamilton’s words; “[The judicial branch] may truly be said to not have either Force or Will but merely judgement,” from Federalist No. 78, the supreme court needs this power. Without this power, he explains that the supreme court is too weak to properly function. It is a really important point to think about. Before this decision by the supreme court, they