The Constitutional Law: Confusion vs. Denial

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

Michael, I believe that we are sharing the same point of view. I am agree with you that there are several differences between what we are experiencing those day and what our constitution founders experience decades ago. I am sure that if they still alive, they will call for more amendments, which some of them seem rational. Like you said, the constitution has some of the weakness that must be taken into consideration. It is time for our legislators to make some actions that might clear some of our constitution’s ambiguity. Like I mentioned above, everything is changing. For instance, the technology that we use a decade ago becomes updated and beyond now. Something for some laws. They need to be updated as

The Constitution of the United States is a complex idea, adopted at a fragile time in American history and is the framework for our government systems. There are different ways to view this document and different ways to interpret it, which can cause debate over the proper and correct way to go about interpretation. Justice Antonin Scalia and former Justice William Brennan, are two intellectuals with different methods and ideas about the correct way to interpret and enforce the Constitution. To understand how the Constitution works for the people of America, one must first understand about the Justices of the Supreme Court who have the power of enforcing the rules and regulations of Americas most prized document.

The free range of interpretation of the Constitution by the branches of government has allowed the country to continue to function and not become stagnant. This is important because the laws of the 18th century United States would not be relevant to that of the 21st century. Technology and the complexity of the world are examples of why interpretation of the constitution is important because no can say for sure any of the original drafters of the constitution anticipated the size the United States would grow and how powerful the country would stand amongst other nations in the modern era. Issues of interoperation have also created a line in the sand between political parties as well as issues between citizen and state. The issue in the forefront of this is the Second amendment and the right that is described that a citizen under proper regulation can join a militia for the security of their free state as well have the right to bear arms (Brady). This amendment is open to interpretation as if much of the other Amendments has been the under controversy in to whether citizens should have the right to arm themselves with firearms. The branches of government whom are at the front of this issue are legislative whom makes laws in correspondence to those they represent as well as their political parties and the judicial branch whom enforce the laws by reviewing them legal by what is written in both law and the constitution.

Chapter one of the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, and Jonathon Kingsbury discuses a historical overview of the United States, or better known as the U.S. Constitution. To elaborate, the textbook educates the reader on why the U.S. Constitution was created, as well as what its main purpose is. Most people know that the U.S. Constitution was not necessarily an original thought by the United States. In fact, it was greatly influenced by the English document known as the Magna Carat (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 13). In addition, the U.S. Constitution was fashioned, mainly, as a binding document to prevent any one person from having complete power in the United

The Constitution has governed the United States for nearly 200 years. It has been the subject of controversy since its genesis. There was a need to expand powers of the central government in order to enforce and better regulate foreign affairs, conduct war and regulate currency across the states. State representatives struggled to divide power fairly between the states and the central government. The main controversy was similar to the original reason the confederation declared its independence from England. Representation.

The “Move to Amend” organization has put forth a proposed twenty-eighth amendment, that if ratified to the U.S. Constitution would take the constitutional rights away from all artificial entities such as corporations, and limit all campaign expenditures including the candidate 's own contributions and expenditures. The Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that according to the fourteenth amendment corporations are individuals that have constitutional rights. If corporations have the same rights as individuals, then under the first amendment they have the right to spend their money on political campaigns as they choose. I am against both parts of this proposed twenty-eighth amendment, the Supreme Court has already set precedence and I believe that the addition of this amendment would directly contradict the first amendment since political speech is at the core of the first amendment. If you set limits on campaign expenditures, you are limiting someone’s ability to effectively campaign and get their message out. If a corporation chooses to spend large sums of money on political advertising then that is their choice, most people don’t want to be told how they can spend their money and neither do corporations.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law...” These famous words, so often heard in movies and television shows as a character is arrested, are well known to Americans. But why are law enforcement officials mandated to repeat this to individuals they arrest? Where did it come from? In Miranda V. Arizona, a case taken all the way to the Supreme Court in 1966, it was decided that constitutional rights must be made clear to the defendant at time of arrest in order for any information received during interrogations to be used as evidence in court and to ensure the rights of the accused are protected throughout the entire process throughout the legal system (Gaines & Miller, 2014).

Many of the sources agree that tribal governments should have assumed or inherent adjudicatory power over non-members on tribal land. Indeed, most sources repeat the same arguments with different justifications. There is a major focus on the history of tribal sovereignty and which is important to in how it impacts the impending decision in Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw. Several sources focus on Native American tribe’s status, as domestic dependent nations are a major part of how the federal government continues to shrink tribal jurisdiction over non-members on tribal land.

constitutional rights. Prison is not a fun place to be even for the most harden criminals, and a correctional system is not an arena for solving the underlying causes of crime. Some states are facing severe budget cuts due to economic struggles and drops in tax revenues; therefore, not all prison facilities in the United States could offer rehabilitation, education, mental health services, and sanitary cells for convicted offenders.

When the Judiciary branch of the government was formed, its purpose was to deem laws and actions constitutional or unconstitutional. Also set up was an hierarchy of courts, with the Supreme Court being at the top. The Supreme Court was to hear cases that would affect federal law. Even though the whole point of the Judiciary branch is to deem something constitutional or unconstitutional, it may result in adding an amendment to the constitution. Just about all of the Supreme Court cases have affected the way modern Americans live. One relatively recent case that has affected political, social, and religious life in America today is Roe v. Wade.

Since the year of 1787, the United States Constitution has persisted as the highest law in our land. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates were determined to set the Articles of Confederation aside and devise a fresh concept. To ensure that we would have a government with rights and freedoms, the delegates created what was called the separation of powers. The reasoning behind the division of government was to ensure that no one branch could vanquish the other. As a result, three separate branches were created in the Constitution known as: the legislative, judicial and executive branches. Since the eighteenth century, America has changed significantly; and while we still uphold the same decrees that lie

In this essay I will try to explain and critique the two dominant methods of constitutional interpretation. Which are originalism and non-originalism. I will do this by taking help from “How to Read the Constitution” by Christopher Wolfe, and different source’s from Internet. I will start by giving what Wolfe says originalism is, and then I will give some background to other ways to interpret the constitution, and the founders and interpretation and I will finish up with my view on originalism and non-originalism and the critics to that.

The United States education system is comprised of laws and regulations that are formed through a hierarchical model. The founding fathers created the U.S. Constitution to be the superior document that holds the regulations other laws such as judicial, statutory, and administrative laws must comply with.

The United States of America is considered to be a land of freedom, it is true that all states have separately made their laws to keep things in control, but they should definitely remember the constitutional laws on which the country is based on. As for illegal immigrants, Texas is aware that those individuals exist and it is not very easy to keep them from coming in. As we can see that there escape to America is a proof that they are trying to get out of the problems back home. It would be best if Texas lawmakers could try to find a way to keep them here by providing them legal documents and maybe contracts of commitment to make them useful for the country. Instead of trying to make their lives more difficult. Everyone understands that it