At present, all federal judges have lifetime tenure; it has been this way since the drafting of the United States Constitution. Many contend that when the Constitution was drafted, the life expectancy then was less than half of what it is now in the 21st century. One of the major criterion for selection was the expectation that the candidate had a longer life expectancy. In other words, the candidate must “be young enough to serve for several decades.” By limiting the term of Supreme Court Justices to that of eighteen years, doing so would provide the potential for an increased sensibility to modern politics and life. If we were to continue to adhere to the verbiage of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, justices could continue to hold the position provided each exhibits good behavior. The question remains whether the pros would outweigh the cons of bringing new life and younger insight into the Court and would it tip the scales and force our legislators to apply term limits.
The primary research question driving the article by Preston & Cushing inquires what the likely impact will be of the new executive order from Obama. Broken down further into subquestions, the article inquires as to the impact that this action would have for illegal immigrants wishing to remain in the United States, for conservative lawmakers who have vociferously opposed their presence here and for the general electoral process that the article predicts will be impacted.
The influx of illegal immigrants into the United States affects every level of government in a significant way. Although the actual effects of illegal immigration are hotly debated, it remains the government's difficult duty to balance the massive amounts of data and diversity of public opinion in order to best accommodate the overall will of its people. In recent times we have witnessed a vast disconnect between what constituents want for their state versus what the nation as a whole considers Constitutionally justifiable. And therefore the necessity of a federal system, wherein the national government is playing a virtual tug-of-war with its states, comes to light. Using the issue of
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) is viewed as one of the most important policy implementations in U.S. immigration history. As drafted, IRCA proposed to be a policy to control and deter all illegal immigration into the U.S., but the policy was truly directed at stopping the flow of Mexican immigrants that continues to be the largest immigration flow in the world. Daniel Tichenor writes in Dividing Lines that, “Originally designed as a restrictive enforcement measure, IRCA proved to be surprisingly expansive in both design and effect.” By identifying the unintended consequences of the law, this paper explores why the policy failed. Ultimately, this paper shows that IRCA
The Constitution of the United States is a complex idea, adopted at a fragile time in American history and is the framework for our government systems. There are different ways to view this document and different ways to interpret it, which can cause debate over the proper and correct way to go about interpretation. Justice Antonin Scalia and former Justice William Brennan, are two intellectuals with different methods and ideas about the correct way to interpret and enforce the Constitution. To understand how the Constitution works for the people of America, one must first understand about the Justices of the Supreme Court who have the power of enforcing the rules and regulations of Americas most prized document.
The Federalist Papers are an insight into the federal court system of the United States through the interpretation of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Through their understanding of the federal court system, we are aided in making our own connections and analysis ' to better understand how the system works. More specifically, in Hamilton 's essay #78, he essentially claims that the federal judiciary isn 't given enough authority to properly do their job. He also makes note that the Supreme Court of the United States should have a substantial amount of power over the US Congress, but only in times when Congress has threatened the
In this article, David Leonhardt assesses the ins and outs of illegal immigration, while simultaneously stating his opinion on the matter. In this article, Leonhardt argues about the severity and use of prosecutorial discretion on laws of immigration and how it affects the American people.
This paper must challenge an area of study for this semester (Not using Lee textbook as references nor private or to refer to non-for profit agencies) to a government agency whom lost a United Supreme Court case since January 2010 issue; In such issues as the supremacy cooperative agreement Section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) in adjunction with Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 287 and INA 287(g) (that was the regulations for Immigration Enforcement Authority prior to 2012) that came under “considerable legal debate concerning the power of state and local police to enforce federal immigration law in the absence of express authorization in federal statute” (Garcia). For which, the states’ oppositions lost their cases in court until the Arizona v. United States case in 2012. For which was not a complete lost because it gave birth to the Memorandum of Understanding between the states and the federal government. By which the federal program ICE were the eyes and ears of implementing the trainings needed for the federal laws and requirements to be enforced by the states and local law enforcements agencies. Though it still fail in its ineffectiveness’, the objectives are still living today, improving its constructive and characteristic methodologies as the years’ goes bye.
“The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...” (U.S. Const. Article. I, Sec. 8). More generally, the Constitution calls upon Congress to make laws, and calls on President to enforce the laws. When it comes to immigration, the judiciary has presented the argument of separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Yet, some courts have expressed the concept that the executive “share[s] plenary power over immigration with Congress as one of the political branches” (Manuel and Todd 2013). When Congress in unable to pass legislation on unanticipated situations affecting immigrants, the President is tasked with responding to the situation. This duty to respond to the unanticipated, coupled
As President Trump’s March deadline for the discontinuation DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) rapidly approaches both houses of congress are fervently seeking for a compromise immigration policy. While the willingness of the Trump Administration to discontinue DACA places the futures of these “dreamers” in the balance, ironically a compromise that makes the protections of DACA recipients permanent and also provides a pathway toward citizenship could ultimately benefit the dreamers more fully than President Obama’s executive order could have ever done. Executive orders are not only at the whims of changing administrations, but also rest on questionable constitutional grounds meaning that courts could also eventually discontinue
This article is about President Barack Obama being rejected trying to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and allow them to work legally in the United States.The Supreme court ruled 4 to 4which tied blocked president Obama's plan. Even though the were short handed due to the death of the 9th member Justice Antonin Scalia died in February. Court ruled had ruled this case deadlocked which challenged president Obama Immigration plan to stop as many as five million undocumented immigrants from being deported and allowed them to legally work in the United States. "Mr. Obama described the ruling as a deep disappointment for immigrants who would not be able to emerge from the threat of deportation for at least the balance
Despite a degree from Columbia Law, a stint with the ACLU, thirteen years on the U.S. Court of Appeals, and twenty-three years on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has decided to reinvent herself at the ripe age of eighty-three; seemingly, becoming a political commentator with an unabashed hatred for Donald Trump fits better. I suppose that it’s never too late, right?
This article discusses the Supreme Court's deadlock on President Obama's immigration policies. The 4 to 4 tie meant his Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) would not be established. This plan would have helped 4 million immigrants from getting deported. It was an expansion of his already successful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which helped prevent the deportation of 1.1 million young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents. Many immigrants were left distraught by the
I believe that the judicial branch is most capable of identifying fundamental rights for two reasons. First of all, it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret laws, which should include interpreting and identifying fundamental rights. Also, in general, when controversies arise, the judicial branch decides the ruling of who is right. Therefore, when controversies arise regarding whether certain rights are fundamental rights, it would work well for identifying fundamental rights to be the job of the judicial branch. The legislative branch is not as capable of identifying fundamental rights as the judicial branch because its job is to write and pass laws, which does not include a large amount of interpretation. The executive branch is not
I believe that the judicial branch has the most power because they have the power to settle disagreements about the meaning of laws and decide if laws and the president decides if laws or action.