Judicial Tyranny The New Kings Of America

In 1788, the ratification of the United States Constitution sought to establish the fundamental aspects of the nation’s government, laws, and protections of its citizens’ unalienable rights. Robert G. McCloskey’s The American Supreme Court (2016) explains that, during this period, the prospects of the Supreme Court were essentially unknown. As time progressed, however, the Court began strengthening its legitimacy with its decisions in major landmark court cases which, in turn, established its crucial role in shaping the judicial interests and values of the nation. As such, McCloskey (2016) traces the country’s judicial history by highlighting the Court’s great transitional periods regarding state rights, nation rights, property rights, and slavery. By the start of the 20th century, however, discrepancies began to emerge with the rise of

David Barton’s Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, breaks down the significance of how religion was intended in the First Amendment and its effect on the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Barton well illustrates how the founding fathers incorporated the position of religion into the First Amendment. Barton explains how the House Judiciary Committee believes, “The founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so” (175). They continue to discuss how the founding fathers were all Christians and they expect it to remain that way in the lives of the citizens. In Barton’s views of the First Amendment, he believes it has changed dramastically

The Judicial Branch is the balancing factor of the Government. It is the listener of the people of the US and it decides on all matters regarding the people. It "interprets the nation's law" (World Book 141). Being able to interpret the law gives the Judicial branch a special kind of power. One of which the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch do not possess. The Judicial branch decides when a law has been broken, to what extent, and how to punish the criminal act. And that is what makes it the strongest branch.

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

While I accept that theoretically a judge should not consider extralegal factors when making a ruling, I cannot accept your premise that all judges rule as neutral arbiters who rely solely on precedent, Constitutional text, and original intent of the Framers. As with any other individual in public service, judges are still human beings, and thus bring with them their own prejudices, personal biases, and preconceived notions when taking the bench.

Examining the View that the Supreme Court is an Effective Protector of Civil Liberties In 1789, the founders of the Constitution set out the power of the Supreme Court in Article III section 2, and, arguably, in the Supremacy clause in Article 6. These clauses gave the Supreme Court the power to protect the Constitution, and by doing so, the power to protect civil liberties. The strength of the Supreme Court is essential in protecting civil liberties that are protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also increased its power through court cases and through judicial revolutions.

The author’s audience and objective that the book Judicial Tyranny the New Kings of America is directed towards, is specifically those interested in learning about the fallacies within our court

The first part of this essay will provide a brief insight into the history of the Supreme Court, the original intentions of the founding fathers and a discussion on how they idealized the relationship between politics and the law. The second section will explore how the contemporary process to which judges are appointed has become significantly influenced by politics. The third section will discuss how the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries on constitutional interpretation in the Roe v. Wade case. The final section will unpack the importance of partisanship and ideological politics and discuss how it impacts the function of the Justices in their

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

This paper is a book critique of The Godless Constitution. The first chapter of the book is titled “Is America a Christian Nation?” and it is an introduction for the rest of the book. In this chapter, the main idea is to open the reader’s mind about that the constitution was created with the idea that religious believes will not influence in the politics of the nation. The authors state that “The principal framers of the American political system wanted no religious parties in national politics” (Kramnick and Moore, 23). Actually, the creation of a constitution without influence of religion was not an act of irreverence. The authors believe that the creation of the constitution was a support to the idea that religion can preserve the civil morality necessary for democracy, without an influence on any political party. The end of the chapter is the description of the following chapters and with a disguise warning that both authors were raise in religious families and they wrote the book with high respect for America’s religious traditions (Kramnick and Moore, 25). The second chapter, called “The Godless Constitution” explains how the different terms to talk about God were taken out and a “no religious test” clause was adopted with little discussion. This clause was a “veritable firestorm” during the ratification debates in several states (Kramnick and Moore, 32). For many people the “no religious test” clause was considered as the gravest defect of the Constitution (Kramnick

constitutionalization of the American judicial system. When the colonists declared their independence from England, they compiled a list of grievances setting forth justifications for their actions. One of the listed grievances against King George III in the American Declaration of Independence concerned the King's control of the British judiciary. Categorizing the King's control of the British judiciary as an obstruction of justice, the patriots declared that "[the King] has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their salaries. "4 Control of the judiciary, however, was not a creation of King George III's reign.5 It predated his reign by decades, and in fact had been somewhat ameliorated

In conclusion of the second argument against judicial review, it is inappropriate for individuals and groups to have the ability to make frivolous attacks on laws that are democratically enacted. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to “clog” the judiciary with requests such as removing “under God” from the pledge of allegiance when they should speak to their congressman or senator over the

Crime is when somebody breaks the rules or laws and, if they're caught, getting punished to the full extent. The basic foundation of crime has been around forever but as time went by a small leak in the system was created and remains to this day. That leak is the social injustice of wealthy people getting off easier with crime and it is time we start putting firm laws in place to stop this global corruptness. There have been multiple recent accounts of people committing crimes and getting away with it because they are wealthy and although the corruptness of the judicial system is very obvious in modern society people still choose to turn the other cheek. Although there are countless examples of wealthy people getting away with crime i have chosen 3 recent examples to explain and elaborate on.

Shake Shack is a fast casual restaurant headquartered in New York City, New York, United States. The shake shack’s primary industry is NAIC code 722110 (Full service restaurants) and its secondary industry is NAIC code 722410. Products include hamburgers, hot dogs, crinkle-cut fries, shakes, frozen custard, beer, and wine. The company is know for using 100% pure all natural high-quality Angus beef in their New York-style hamburgers. Their domestic menu include a range of items, including the ShackBurger®, SmokeShack®, Shack-cago Dog®, 'Shroom Burger™, seasonal frozen custard, hand-spun shakes, concretes, ShackMeister® Ale and Shack Red™ and Shack White™ ( Mergent,2016).Shake Shack operates and licenses restaurants in the global

The American legal system is a complex animal with many parts and functions dictated to it. At the heart of the legal system are the judges who make the hard calls in the name of justice and equality. While the majority of people know what a judge is, great multitudes do not know the full extent of their positions and role in the grand scheme of the legal system. And so, the question arises, “What is the role of the judge in the American legal system. Quite simply, in the American legal system, judges serve as the intermediaries of the law and as such, serve as defenders, interpreters and enforcers of the laws that they swear to uphold.