Supersede Federal Laws

Founders of the United States of America believed in providing the people of this great nation with a fair, and impartial judicial system. The basic rights of the people, which are listed in the Bill of Rights, needed to be respected and protected by the government. Abraham Lincoln once said “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth”. Every part of the United States government has a duty to protect the people that gave the government power, and one organization in particular plays a very large role in this charge. The Judicial System of the United States America is a complex organization constructed to uphold the authority of the Constitution, and federal law. The judges within the

The Supremacy Clause: Conflict between Federal and State Law as it relates to Medical Marijuana

States have always been sensitive about the amount of power they have; the federal government has always had to step carefully around the demands of the states. This has been true since the beginning of the United States. But both believe that they should have the most power when it comes to certain things. Individual states have different values and as such tend to implement different laws about certain topics; such states want their state laws to reflect these individual values instead of a blanket law from the federal government. States should have less power compared to the federal government when implementing laws dealing with topics such as the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion.

Americans only see few ways to affect real change on government because politicians are too reliant upon large donations. Groups contribute money, and later on receive a kickback of bill that favors them or supports their positions. “Candidates who raise lots of money say it indicates broad support. Candidates with little money point out that voters, not donors, decide elections” (2012 Presidential). Candidates spend large amount of time fundraising, which decreases people’s confidence in the government’s ability to do their

The private citizens seem to have lost sight of their role in government as well. The people have forgotten that they are just as part of the government as the people that hold positions in office. Citizens of this country sit around and complain about what the governments does or doesn't do. They complain about the government running their lives. What they seem to have forgotten is, they have elected theses people. When it comes to voting, the people should look into the person that they are voting for. They need to ask themselves, What does this person stand for? Does this person believe in the things that are important to me? Will this person make the right decisions? The problem is,too many people just vote for whom ever is affiliated to the party of their choice. It is the duty of the citizens of America to vote and vote wisely. We need to remember our role in government, if we want the government to remember theirs.

In 1789, each of the thirteen states had already establish a judicial system such as criminal and civil cases. The United States Constitution is the original document in which it established fundamental laws for the national government as well as protecting the right of the citizens. The U.S Constitution was designed to avoid too much power in the system of checks and balances. As years went by, the Constitution began to adapt to the modern changes. Subsequently, the judicial system began to full fill the U.S Constitution’s purpose. Both Federal and State have their own jurisdiction and functions as stated in the Constitution. However, in recent years the judicial system has been broken due to lack of structure in law on the book and law in action.

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

In order for one to understand American Constitutional law, one must first look to the Constitution; and therefore, look to the federal government established in the Constitution. The federal government is purposefully divided into three branches: the legislative branch that makes the laws, the judicial branch that interprets the laws, and the executive branch that puts the laws into effect. Article VI, Clause 2, sets up the Constitution as “the supreme Law of the Land;” and therefore, legislators, judges, and presidents must comply with the standards set in the Constitution. Judges, then, have the function to interpret what the Constitution means and have the responsibility to ensure laws adhere to the Constitution. Thereby, the

NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, described a “horrible political storm” brewing over the Supreme Court of the United States (“CNN,” 2016, p. 1). While reporting for CNN, Totenberg used these words to draw attention to the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in an era of modern politics in which the court has become more polarized than ever. The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not only being severely impacted by partisan ties, but is now also deciding cases according to these biased beliefs. The Democratic and Republican parties, after corrupting and encroaching upon the federal judiciary, have made court nominations and rulings into a game of party politics, inevitably destroying the impartiality of the

The article called “Our Imbecilic Constitution” by Sandford Levinson, is an interesting piece that includes the author’s opinions and criticism about the U.S Constitution and why it should be amended to meet the needs of this generation. One of the author's main points focused on the effects of the presumed outdated U.S constitution within our current government. (Explain) Secondly, the author offers a contrast between the U.S. Constitution and the states Constitution. One example from the article includes the state of California. The state of California Constitution was considered dysfunctional and stupid to the U.S Constitution in its unaltered conditions. The author says that even though this so-called strong system of separation of power and “check and balance”

As the former mentioned document does not forbid the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus but simply does not state it, I do not feel like the Judiciary Act of 1789 is in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution is not capable of including every eventuality there is, therefore declaring every law not mentioned in the Constitution as unconstitutional would restrict the actions of the legislative and executive immensely. Instead, declaring acts as unconstitutional should be limited to laws or actions directly interfering with it. I do think judicial review is an important tool in the modern system of checks and balances and plays a significant role in keeping different branches from gaining too much power. It is, therefore, necessary to

Just because it is the 21st century does not change the fact that legislation can be unconstitutional. The fact that the judges are not elected and serve life terms enables them to make the right decision and not the most popular one, something we see politicians fall victim to all the

Many of America’s democratic principles are drawn from the constitution like the checks and balances system. The supreme court’s power of judicial review was not mentioned in the constitution. It evolved following the Marbury Vs Madison case and was not granted by the constitution. The Supreme Court therefore does not have the authority to carry out judicial review and become a quasi-legislative branch because the constitution granted this power to Congress.

Could “ordinary Americans” accomplish a better a job of solving national problems than government officials? Study polls show that over the course of years the trust that Americans had in the government has slowly diminished. This change is the government’s fault. Someone doesn’t want to install their trust in somebody else who is not truthful. Americans should not trust government officials because they are not always truthful, treat citizens like criminals, and they are not doing anything that truly make America “better”.

I believe that in order for us to get a change, we need to draw much more attention to the issue and have a structured and reliable plan set. Nowadays, the government operates for their own private or personal reason, and does not take in consideration the equality that citizens are supposed to have. Mr. Lessig illustrates the problem of the corrupted money in politics well, and his plan to change it is well thought out. I think that the plan of vouchers and rank voting will take a long time to get in motion, because the citizens can identify with the problem, but not all can get the plan of action. The government needs to operate correctly, and by that, I mean that they need to consider all citizens as equals, even if that means putting their personal reasons aside to give the citizens their granted rights. If not, the citizens should fight for it. Citizens have the responsibility to vote, but these votes are near useless if the candidates are already corrupted. That’s why I think that modern politics need to look back to what the Founding Fathers wrote, and modify for what it was initially intended to mean: that all citizens are created equal and that the government is dictated by the people, not the other way