The American Political System Is Built On A Foundation Of Checks And Balances

The concept of power is a divisive matter in the American political system, as the actors holding it are sometimes unable to impose it as a result of their limited authority to do so. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches in the national government depend on each-others point of view. Part of the Constitution was designed with the purpose of making it impossible for either of these three to become more powerful than the others. Each of them has the ability to check and balance the way that the other two function. In spite of the fact that this system was created with the intention of preventing power from being shared unequally in the country, it sometimes serves as a tool for political gridlock, considering that the judicial branches can debate in regard to a particular topic for unlimited amounts of time before actually reaching a conclusion regarding the respective issue.

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

The rest of Article III, Section I points to how judges can serve stating, “shall hold Offices during good behavior.” The good behavior portion of the statement is constitutionally recognized that judges may serve to the end of their life time or leave office voluntarily. Over time the meaning of life time has expanded and become the center of the controversy surrounding the extent of service. The framers of the constitution found life tenure appropriate for the justices of the Supreme Court as an expression of their importance to the government, but also that the loss of their cognitive ability was an imaginary farce.

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.

When the Supreme Court was created by the founders, they did not specify term limits. In article III section I, it states, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” In this excerpt of the Constitution the wording is very vague. The founders did not anticipate the judges not wanting to step down for the benefit of the country. This 28th amendment sets clear term limits for the Supreme Court Justices. Since the inception of the Supreme Court, most Justices have tried their

Over the years there has also been many other different scholarly literatures written to discuss the issue of term-limits and whether or not they should be implemented for Supreme Court Justices. Each article gives suggested ideas about the issue and explain about multiple research studies that have analyzed different types of data to see if life tenure is effective or if it diminishes the value of the justice. One article written by Steven Calabresi and James Lindgren called Term Limits for Supreme Court: Life Tenure Reconsidered, expresses the belief that the American constitutional rule granting life tenure to Supreme Court Justices is fundamentally flawed and results in justices on the court for a longer period of time. In Nick Tomboulides’

A federal judicial vacancy occurs when a judge is either elevated to a higher court or when they reach senior judge status, creating an empty seat on the bench. A judge, beginning at the age of 65, may retire at their current salary or take senior status after performing 15 years of active service as an Article III

In our American government nearly all of our officials titles have limits on them. Regulating the tenure that a single person is allowed to serve. One of our arguably most important positions in the American government, the supreme court justice does in fact not have a term limit. Many people question why they do not have term limits and in fact in the article "Why it’s time to get serious about Supreme Court term limits" they say "Only 17 percent said they supported life tenure. 66 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Republicans supported the proposal - a strong, and rare, show of bipartisanship." With their study it shows that majority of people think it's a good idea.

The United States Constitution never really elaborated or delegated any instructions regarding the Supreme Court when it was first written so it was up to Congress and court justices to truly create the judicial branch of government we have today. However, it was the only Court specifically mentioned in the Constitution and serves as the final and highest form of the law in the nation. It serves to regulate the powers of the other two branches of government, and can strike down a law passed by Congress if it’s considered unconstitutional. With so much power, the Supreme Court does have quite a bit of influence on important social and political issues, and although the justices shouldn’t be elected, there should be stricter guidelines

When the founding fathers proposed the judiciary branch, they wanted it to not only handle disputes but to play a key role in the system of checks and balances. They didn’t explicitly layout a system of judicial review. Judicial review came about through the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which had the impact of making the Supreme Court a major law making body and not just a judicial agency. With this additional power given to the Supreme many individuals feel that over the past few centuries, the power of the Supreme Court has become too great and that 18-year term limits should be placed upon the Supreme Court justices. However, I disagree with the idea of term-limits. Term limits for Supreme Court justices should not be put into place

I don't think it will be easy to decide whether the federal judiciary is living up to its responsibilities. There are both advantages and disadvantages for the lifelong appointment of many judges. The positive side is they have much time to make decisions on the particular issue. The negative side is that there seems to be some room for them to rule the case imprecisely. In addition, it is difficult for the judges not to add their personal perspectives or emotion in the case when ruling. Sometimes, combining the previous rulings on the similar cases or personal perspectives with the law will help to analyze the cases.

Checks and balances are an important part to the Constitution because with them, each of the three branches of government can limit the power of others. This was, no one branch becomes to powerful. If one person has all the power, then it is easy for them to abuse the power. An example for this would be; if Congress could pass laws and determine that they were constitutional, then by the defintion of checks and balanes, all laws that were passed by the Congress would be constitutional. Checks and balances were created because the Founding Fathers feared having an oppressive head of government, like a king. The main importance of these checks and balances is that any action taken by one of the branches of governement, must go through the other

Explain the system of checks and balances within the American government and its significance. Be sure to provide examples and discuss alternative views.

The Supreme Court is a critical part of our government. As such, we need the very best and most capable judges to serve on the bench of the court. Unfortunately, there have been several cases where judges have stayed on the court way to long. For example, “Philip Cattan fell asleep during a rape trial, and was allowed to remain a judge”. (Daily Mail, 2016). Therefore, term limits are a good idea because it would reduce the impact of judges medical issues on the court, changing judges more often would result in judges who are more in touch with society, and the majority of people in the United States support the idea of the term limits for the Supreme Court.

Many people argue about whether or not Supreme Court Justices should be able to serve for life or have an age restriction on when they must retire. Currently, Supreme Court Justices have the ability to serve for life unless they resign or are impeached. Justices have served for life ever since the framers decided it when writing the Constitution. Because of the integrity, their dedication, and experience, Supreme Court Justices should have the ability to serve for life. These justices should have the ability to serve for life because they know what the job includes before accepting the position.