Kirby And Callinan Jj Argue Favour Of Maintaining The Federal Balance Of Power

According to Jost (2012), the nation has contradicting views on political issues which divide where we think the appropriate role of the government lies (p. 743). American politics is complex and reflects a partisan system, making it challenging for governmental officials to decide on whether or not to re-examine the constitution. Another crucial point when analyzing this issue, is a person’s positionality in the American society determines their view on the

Section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution of Australia grants exclusive power to the Commonwealth to legislate with regard to external affairs. Since its inception, through the development of case law, the external affairs power has been found to consist of three limbs:

In the dissenting judgment made by Callinan J in the landmark New South Wales v Commonwealth (“Workchoices’ Case”), a strong criticism was mounted against constitutional interpretation methods employed in the judicial forum. Explicitly, this conjecture was focused at Isaacs J’s judgement in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ Case”), where a textualism approach to constitutional interpretation was adopted. Callinan J expressed the Engineers’ Case as “less than satisfactory”, using “detached language” to discredit its literal methodology of interpreting the constitution.

The case of Mabo v Others v State of Queensland (No.2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 (www.austlii, 1993), rewrote common law as the court ruled in a six to one majority, that the people of

Federalism is a political concept describing the practice whereby a group of members are bound together by a covenant. An advantage of federalism is that one person will not have too much power. So none of the branches can run with all the power, and what they say goes. Also it helps divide power between local, state, and federal governments. Everyone has to go through someone, also known as checks and balances, to get laws or other things passed. It also allow citizen to be involves in what is going in the country. All the power is not in one person’s hands, it is distributed to local representatives, and they give it to their citizens to vote. So citizens are aware of what is going on in government on the federal, state, and local levels.

Federalist 51: Balance or Imbalance of Powers? The Federalist Papers were written to persuade citizens to support the proposed Constitution of 1789 in lieu of the existing Articles of Confederation. A popular concern was that surrendering more power of the "states" (formerly colonies) to a new federal government would endanger individual liberties, especially in small states, at least one of which (Rhode Island, as cited by Madison in Federalist 51) had been formed as breakaway colonies in order to protect individual religious rights against the majority in the previous colony (Massachusetts, in the case of Rhode Island).

Webster’s second reply to Hayne is the account of Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster’s speech to Congress addressing the proposition given by Senator Robert Hayne for states to have the right to nullify laws passed by Congress. Webster starts the speech off by affirming that what he understood Haynes stance to be concerning States Rights and Constitutionality was indeed correct. From Webster’s perspective he ascertained that Hayne believes that the states had the sovereign right to annul laws passed and approved by Congress if they considered the law to be unconstitutional. Then he goes on to counter Hayne’s belief by asking several vital questions: “Whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws?” and “Who is the source and origin of the Government’s power?” Thus Webster launches into how the Government’s power resides with the people. He elaborates that it is the people who have made the government what it is and the constitution the supreme law. After establishing the people as the foundation of government he goes on to concede that the individual States are indeed sovereign; however they are not sovereign over the people. Following this key element of Webster’s speech, he then distinguishes the attributes of the General and State Governments. According to Webster both general and state governments derive their power from the same source, yet each form has its unique identity and powers. The federal government is general

Suggesting that even when the Courts decided to review Constitutionality of certain state laws the decisions would generally only conform to national public mood. And when the court’s decision did not conform to the national publics mood Congress would step in to make its out policy outcomes which would more please the majoritarian preferences by reversing the more unpopular Court decisions with reversal legislation. Although there may be some legitimacy to Dahl’s argument, Casper is still able to convey that by excluding interpretation of federal statutes and review of constitutional issues arising from state and local laws and practices only weakens Dahl’s argument being that these activities seem highly relevant to determining the court’s role in national policymaking. When they are considered, the courts role appears substantially more influential than Dahl would like to

In order to advance the acumen of how Congress constructs its acts from inception to enactment, there are various methodologies one can use. With that in mind, this exploration aligns to the Analytical Framework methodology as described in our class textbook, The Struggle for Democracy by authors Edward Greenberg and Benjamin Page. Thus, the congressional act I’ve chosen to examine is the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 as it’s of immense importance to all Americans. Specifically, this act addresses the fundamental need of our nation’s workforce as it relates to work/life balance; therefore, by providing the context of the reasons why such a law emerged, identifying the collaborating actors in the creation and implementation of the law, articulating the process of enactments, as well as outlining out its path to enactment using the Analytical Framework, this exploration will increase its reader’s competency of knowledge about what transpired in passing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if the

Throughout the history of this nation, the Constitution, from the formation to the execution thereof, has set forth the precedent for the demonstration of excessive federal power that is clearly illustrated by history and modern America. Sufficient documentation to back up this premise includes primary documents such as James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, the Constitution of the United States, and other historical pieces. Ample consideration should be given to the paramount decisions of America’s elected officials in critical moments as well in the very construction of the American system of government that favors federalism.

Since this paper intends to consider the Supreme Court cases relative to the political scenario, the cases have been selected such that each case reflects a different political scenario. In some scenarios, all three branches of the government are dominated by members or opinions of a single party. In other scenarios, a branch is dominated by the ruling party while another branch is dominated by the opposition party. These scenarios also take into account the different eras the cases were in as well as the changes in political opinions of political parties over time. For instance, the Democratic Party of the 19th century was anti-federalism while the Democratic Party of the late 20th century was pro-federalism. This change was mainly due to two eras, firstly, the Roosevelt era of the 1930s and secondly, the civil rights era of the 1960s. This will be explained further in a later

In addition, clause 9 of the legislation proposes to implement the requirement of “Army Reserve’ training to at least 5% of the teachers of a ‘constitutional college’. This proposed of federal regulation on constitutional colleges can be analysed using the decision reached in the Work Choices case. In this, the Court reaffirmed the “object of command test’ as the preferred test to determine whether or not a law falls within the core of the corporations power, and therefore can be validly applied to a corporation. This test dictates that a ‘constitutional corporation is an object of command of a law, permitting or prohibiting a trading or financial corporation from engaging in conduct or forming relationships’.

In a country as vast and advanced as the United States, several branches of government are need to govern all people. In times of emergency, our government shows how capable they really are in maintaining the U.S. as we know it. Federalism and checks and balances often benefit each other in cases of catastrophe because they work together to provide aid and preserve the common good, as this is usually the top concern. The government doesn't really keep a strong balance between the common good, protecting citizens, and maintaining a free society because the top priority is keep the death toll low/evacuating citizens.

This debate greatly contributed our understanding of our national government and provided for stronger protections and the addition of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution did ultimately get passed, this did not necessarily prove the Federalists right in every instance and the Anti-Federalists wrong. This is particularly is proven in the evidence of the many predictions of the Anti-Federalists that have come true and the change of opinion on several essays from "The Federalist" that the authors later changed their opinion on. The decisive reason for the Constitution's eventual ratification and the alleged failure of the Anti-Federalist can be pinpointed to several key issues, some of which are the lack of an cohesive opinion of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a worthy alternative, and a weaker argument to be debated. This is notably portrayed in the Anti-Federalist dissention of the Constitutions clauses for the office of the President and reveals similarities to the failures they suffered in their position against Constitution as a whole.