Judicial Synthesis Essay

The vision of the founders of the Constitution was to create an energetic presidential fashion in which the president has enough energy to lead the nation yet be constrained to not threaten the liberty of the people. The lesson many Americans learned from their experience with the British was that liberty is threatened by executive power and safeguarded by legislative power (pg. 3). The framers were cautious of the responsibilities the executive branch would have so that tyranny would be prevented. The Framers created a democracy that prevents any branch from overstepping its constitutionally assigned limits, including the presidents. The framers decision was influenced by their experiences without an executive branch while the British government was under King George III. The

In the Articles of Confederation it limited Congress, which made the United States’ central government very weak. In Document 1 “Rough Sailing Ahead?, ” it depicts the

Although he appointed these men many of whom were far more experienced than he, Lincoln would always make the final decision regardless of his cabinet’s opinion on the matter. Lincoln came to the conclusion as the President of a nation at war with itself this allowed himself to take on certain “war powers” that would be needed to preserve the union. The scope of his power was extended militarily, financially and legally. Lincoln throughout the war implemented the following without congressional approval appropriated funds, implemented a naval blockade and implemented a draft. A few more military measures that Lincoln took was the implementation of Marshall Law in Border States, and most controversially suspending habeas corpus. Many of these actions were taken when Congress was out of session and they were later approved. Lincoln often took unilateral action because a deliberative body such as Congress, could often not make these time sensitive

All through the American history, the President's capacities have extended enormously from a constrained part doled out by the Founding Fathers to the official force and a more extensive impact over numerous territories. Being suspicious of giving the President an official force which may prompt an American dictator, the Founding Fathers permitted not very many particular president powers, in contrast with the real part of Congress, which was relied upon to be the predominant branch of the national government.

Article ll of the United States Constitution gives the executive branch very broad powers. Many Presidents throughout history have interpreted that differently. They may think that they are able to sign bills into law directly, take military action, etc. One example of this use of power was Abraham Lincoln. We see examples of this in the Emancipation Proclamation and the suspension of habeas corpus.

Lincoln wasn't able to balance the needs of war and maintain a democratic system throughout the war. Issues over the limit of the president's authority in emergency situations have been triggered by his suspension of several basic rights and his declaration of a national emergency in some places. In "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties," Legal student Mark E. Neely delves into the complex issues surrounding Lincoln's behavior during the war, showing the battle between individual freedom and the needs of national security. Abraham Lincoln, however, was never persuaded in his commitment to constitutional concepts and believed that maintaining the separation of powers was important for guaranteeing the survival of democracy in the United States. As historian James Oakes points out in "Freedom National The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865," Lincoln believed that the survival of democratic government ultimately depended on the country's survival and that the cause of freedom was closely related to it.

One of the many challenges the founding father faced,when creating the system of government we still follow to this day, was what powers should each part of government be given. After winning the war against the Great Britain and declaring freedom one of the concern they had was in creating a leader that has a great deal of power and becoming almost like the monarchy they fought against. Creating the president, which didn 't exist under the confederation, was seen as one of best outcomes of the convention since it provided a focal point for the government. One thing for sure that most founding fathers agreed upon was limiting the president’s power and making Congress be responsible for critical issues.

The President may not declare war, but he may deploy soldiers. He may require in writing the opinions of any of the heads of state departments as it relates to their respective offices. The President also has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the U.S., except in cases of impeachment. The President also has the power to make treaties with foreign powers provided the Senate has consented by a two-thirds majority. He may also appoint ambassadors, ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President also has the power to fill vacancies in the Senate temporarily. On extraordinary occasions, the President may convene or temporarily adjourn either or both legislative houses in the interest of resolving disputes. The President is also charged with meeting with ambassadors and other public representatives. The President can also be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. With the presidential powers now outlined, let us explore the opposing opinions of each presidential power(Colonies of Nations, 549-553).

In the Federalist No. 78 Hamilton positions that the judicial branch is the least authoritative regarding its own power because, the judicial branch can’t decide to enforce laws or create laws. Although the judiciary is one of the weakest of all the branches inside the government, it still effects the freedom and sovereignty for each American for their own liberty as it has to power to judge. The judicial branch must decide to be independent from the legislative and executive branch, on behalf of the position of the judicial branch, its main purpose according to Hamilton is to regulate on its own power to see if a law is constitutional or not. Hamilton suggests that he supports the action of assigning judges through the presidential selection

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,

This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

too exact and prosaic a kind to allow of his having any order in his

The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.

The Supreme Court has had many different places where it was located over the years. There has been a struggle to find a permanent home for the most powerful court of law. At first, the meetings were in the Merchant Exchange Building in New York City. The court then followed the nation's capitol to Philadelphia in 1790. In 1800 the court again relocated to Washington DC. At first they spent their time meeting in various places. The place to find the Supreme Court now is in Washington DC, on First Street located in Northeast.