how the U.S. Constitution influenced the American criminal justice system?
462753
Duh. It created the Supreme court, laid out basic freedoms-what you can't be tried for. It acknowledged the system of "checks-and-balances"
822083
I'm trying to do this by memory, so here goes. ........\n\n"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must conceive that the judiciary, from the nature of its power, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution, because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no influence over either the strength or wealth of a society, and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive department even for the efficacy of its judgments."\n\nI hope I got that right.\n\nIn terms of REstating Hamilton, instead of just quoting him, I'll explain that Hamilton meant that the judiciary has the weakest power of the three branches of government. The judiciary is weakest because it cannot make the other two branches do anything. The judges merely hand down "judgments," which do not have the force of law unless the executive branch chooses to obey the judiciary, and the executive branch doesn't have to do so. Even when Congress has made a law that the judiciary subsequently says is unconstitutional, the executive can choose to continue enforcing that law, effectively thumbing its nose at the judiciary.
87185
Try this site:\n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/\n\nIt has all kind of information on the Constitution.
1073901
The 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States;\n\nThe right of the people to be secure in thier persons, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nThats how it reads, however it has been left to interpretation by any number of authorities. In my interpretation probable cause was required to obtain a warrant in order to search , not cause for search.......\n\nHowever there have been so many other changes to our Constitution that the original bill of rights is mostly just a memory, and has been used and abused by the crooked, the greedy and the power hungry for too long\n\nVOTE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION....\nso that "We the People" can retake our country and reinstate our freedoms\n\nPeace to all...now more than ever...
688133
The Constitution is intended as a framework upon which the nation can build a legal system.  It's a wonderful thing.  Read it.  (You can get a free copy from the Cato Institute)\n\nThe only thing better is the Bill of Rights.\n\nMy least favorite Amendment is the 18th, but it's okay 'cos the 21st set that right!
277485
Amendment VIII (the Eighth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, prohibits excessive bail or fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. \n\nExcessive Bail - the Eighth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that bail may be denied where the charges are sufficiently serious. The Supreme Court has also permitted "preventive" detention without bail.\n\nExcessive Fines - The protection against excessive fines applies only with respect to the government. Punitive damages awarded in civil trials are not governed by the clause, as the Supreme Court held in Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989). The Supreme Court has held that the wealth of the defendant need not be considered when deciding the excessiveness of a fine; neither has the Court ever explicitly set a maximum figure for fines.\n\nCruel AND Unusual Punishment - The use of the word and (instead of or) has been held to have some significance. Cruel punishments are allowable as long as more than one court system applies the punishment. Similarly, unusual punishments are permitted so long as they are not cruel, although some lawyers would argue that any unusual punishment is cruel.\n\nThe Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime.\n\nIn Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."\n\nThe "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture. \n"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion". \n"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society". \n"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary". \nContinuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles.
281426
The American Justice system is a joke. The rich can hire people who know the law and "buy" justice while the poor people get sent to prision. \n\nPower corrupts and the rich don't like it when one of their own gets locked up.
210357
Because of the way the US evolved as a nation. When you look at the US during the revolutionary War, they were more a group of 13 small nations fighting for a common cause than one nation. Under the Articles of Confederation, they needed a law passed by 9 of the 13 to be in force. The states had just fought a war to get rid of one large government, they didn't want another one.\n\nBut they saw they needed to get things done, so the Constitution of the United States was passed by the states which was a compromise. In the Constitution, some powers are reserved for the federal government, and some for the states. \n\nThe United States is a big nation- some things are better done locally. If you have an issue with the education your child is getting, do you want to have to go through the US government to get a definitive answer ? A local school board would be better.\n\nAnd also because the US is so large and values vary from state to state, it's beter to have some laws at the local level than at the national level. Take for instance, the death penalty. Most people in New England are against (or at least not strongly in favor of) the death penalty. In the south, capital punishment is almost universally approved. So the people in New England and the South can both have what they want in their laws without interference from the Federal government.\n\nSometimes (and some would argue usually) democracy works best locally. Foreign affairs, imports, defense, security- those are things better left to the federal government.
922369
Article Six of the US Constitution says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding," which essentially meas that federal law always supersedes state law.\n\nThe Supreme Court has ruled that, since marijuana is sold across state lines and more often than not comes from outside the country altogether, Congress can regulate pot under the Commerce Clause. Congress can even regulate non-interstate sale of pot because it affects interstate commerce.
951504
Supremacy Clause\nFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia\nJump to: navigation, search\nArticle VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause:\n\n"This Constitution, and the law of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." \nThe Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or Constitutions conflict with the clause.
878852
That's a long list.... instead of giving the answers, I'll give you a link to study.....\n\nBut to answer quickly....\n\nThe constitution was put into effect in 1789, it does serve the people by making "Expo Facto" laws illegal, provide postal service to all citizens and divides power among 3 branches of government just to name a few. It was made even more powerful for the people when the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) was passed and the amendments were ratified.
425292
Being convicted of a Felony looses your right to vote, leave the Country, and buy certain property in certain States.  As far as the Constitution it is interpreted by each Administration that is in power.
308659
Think of the Constitution of a country as the Mother of all laws of that land.  It operates based on territory - meaning it applies to all those who can be found on the territory in certain aspects, especially criminal matters and the bill of rights - and it also operates on the basis of citizenship in that it all citizens of that country are governed by the Constitution.
694272
The two main ideals from the Magna Carta that affect American law is the right to due process, and the idea that the executive's power is limited. As a note, even in the UK, the Magna Carta has mostly been repealed (since much of it is irrelevant nowadays).
973093
I agree about our Constitution. This nation was the first nation in the modern world where it was openly acknowledged that no one possesses perfect foresight, so our body of laws had to be flexible enough to accommodate future Americans and their future issues, but solid enough and based upon firm enough principles that they would not be changed on a whim. The principles upon which our system was founded were (and are) so cutting edge that they have become a model for many countries where liberty and equality are at issue. Under the ideals upon which this country was founded, it is easy to see why we are held up as the model against which other countries measure themselves. However, the ideal and the reality sometimes are just far enough apart to reflect duplicity to those looking for c hinks in our collective armor. Suffice it to say that ours is the most effective system operating for most intents and purposes, inconsistencies notwithstanding.
609749
Although imaginative, your idea would violate the "cases and controversies" clause in Article 3 of the Constitution.  That clause has been interpreted to mean only actual cases in which a person who has really been affected or is about to be affected brings an actual controversy before the courts.  US federal courts can not try to imagine how a law or Presidential act is going to play out and just decide it's unconstitutional.  Somebody always has to file an actual lawsuit or be charged with an actual crime before the courts have any power to do anything in our system -- which sorta deflates the nonsense we hear about activist judges in this country.\n\nIn many other countries, including many European democracies, the system works differently.  Those countries often have "constitutional courts" that basically check laws as they're being made to decide whether they are going to be ok or not.  If not, they are often returned to parliament to be re-worked.  Of course, courts in general there work very, very differently from what we're used to in the US, and they are not always an independent branch like they are here.  That's why it makes sense to limit the power of our federal courts by making them more passive, removing their ability to have a voice on subjects where no real trouble has yet arisen.\n\nAlso, the Constitution's second Article gives the President a lot of trust and authority precisely so our country would have somebody in a position to handle emergencies quickly and without long debates.  The President has a duty to keep secrets, even from the courts unless -- yup, unless an actual case or controversy comes from a valid lawsuit or a criminal charge.  Making the President keep members of the judicial branch around with him to hear all his secrets would violate the separation of powers that is so important to the structure of our republic.\n\nIn any case, we do have judges who sit in special federal courts, where the judges have top security clearance and are supposed to review the President's activities, grant or deny him search warrants, and that sort of thing.  Sadly, this President has decided that, despite what the laws say, he can ignore that court and its judges.  I see little reason at this point to trust that he would cooperate with judges or obey their rulings in your plan any more than he already has in reality.
957654
The Bill of Rights doesn't differ from the Constitution.  They are a part of the Constitution - the first ten amendments.\n\nFreedom of speech\nFreedom of religion\nFreedom of the press\nThe right to bear arms\nMust have a search warrant with probable cause to search\nThe right not to self-incriminate yourself in court\nTrial by jury\nNo excessive bail