How has congress exercise of the Expressed powers reflected the liberal constructionists view point?
606229
I don't know but you could try the following website.
823777
The President responded properly with the barrage of questions.  It is stability under pressure especially that Democrats comprised the majority in the Congress.
941661
I was inclined to support the action, because the president and a large majority of each house of congress did:\n\nhttp://hnn.us/articles/1282.html
891492
The United States government is a prime example of a liberal democracy.
1002650
required rules of operation???\n\nfrom observation it would appear that lying the first and foremost requirement for congress to operate.
103988
it doesnt, its a contract restriciting the power of those we 'trust' with it.\nhttp://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
523017
First, be sure to break up the methodologies that are grouped into Originalists:\n\nOriginal Intent - The constitution should be interpreted by what the original authors meant.\n\nOriginal Meaning - Interpretation of the constitution should depend on the ordinary meaning of the text at the time it was drafted.\n\nTextualism - Original meaning constricted to its ordinary meaning and excludes intention of the legislature in passing the statute. It should be noted that textualism is concerned with the meaning of the overall text moreso than each individual word.\n\nConstitutions are documents which act as a frameworks for making laws. Laws should only be created by those designated as legislatures (Congress). It is up to the justices to interpret whether laws are constitutional when a challenge is raised. Under originalist views, if the law does not match the constitution, it should be rejected; if it matches it is fine. Those in favor of the 'living document' theory may refer to the constitution and past judicial decisions; but tend to favor personal and social opinion.\n\nThe biggest difference in the views comes when the constitution has nothing to say about the law in question. Originalist tend to reject the case since there is no constitutional backing. Those in favor of the 'living constitution' tend to interpret the law despite no constitutional backing.\n\nIf the constitution has nothing to say on the issue, then it is Congress's job to radify a new ammdment to the constitution. Originalist tend to honor this power, while 'liing document' theorists will attempt to interpret law without constitutional backing.\n\nOriginalist also tend to honor stare decisis, that prior decisions should be recognized as precidents. They may overturn prior decisions that don't have constitutional backing, however, they tend to honor the prior decisions moreso than 'living document' theorists.\n\nI think Antonin Scalia says it best in this attack on 'living document' theory:\n"[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things . . . [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable."
798307
When you break down the actual power that is instilled in each branch, the answer is fairly obvious.\n\nIt seems as if the the folks who have answered think that it is clearly the Judicial Branch, but they couldn't be more wrong.  If anything, the Judicial Branch has the least amount of authority in the federal government. The Supreme Court, in fact, has only implied power. The High Court acquired the ability to deem a law unconstitutional via one of their own rulings in 1803 (Marbury vs, Madison); nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it authorize the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court can only rule on cases brought before them by parties with a standing concern (i.e., individuals who are being directly and immediately affected by the law). If the case never reaches their courtroom, all the Supreme Court can do is sit idley by and watch from the sidelines. As far as the preconception that a Court ruling not being able to be overturned, that's not entirely accurate. The Congress, from time to time, can regulate and make exceptions to Supreme Court decisions, in particular where it pertains to the Court's appellate jurisdiction.\n\nYou would have to list the the Executive Branch as a pretender as well, considering that The Congress can supercede nearly every decision that the President can make. His veto powered is neutered by the fact that Congress can simply override and institute any law that the President strikes down, Presidential appointments are subject to approval by both Houses, and his job security is determined largley at their discretion.\n\nThe Legislative Branch, without a doubt, holds all the cards in this discussion.They write our laws, levy our taxes, declare our wars, confirm our Supreme Court Justices and Cabinet Officials, decide how the federal money is spent, amongst a plothera of other actionable powers. In addition to their great many capabilities, as it concerns this discussion, Congress has the authority to impeach and dismiss the occupants of the other 2 branches. This, above all else, makes the Legislative Branch, undoubtedly, the most powerful of the three.
1001290
The Constitution gives the President primary powers in foreign policy, but Congress has oversight and, ultimately, the power of the purse - if they don't like a particular course of action, they can refuse to fund it or authorize any monies to be spent on it.
40225
I must commend you on one of the most thoughtful (and complex) questions I have had the pleasure to read--and try to understand--since I began at Yahoo! Answers.\n\nI see the logic of the argument you are offering.  It definitely gets into the whole "separation of powers" issue.  What IS Congress' role in confiming members of the judiciary?\n\nUnfortunately, there is always going to be a political element in presidential appointments.  And with the legislative arm charged with signing off on most of those appointments, the political factor increases dramatically.\n\nIn this case, it appears many people, in either party, believe the judges appointed by President Bush could or would have a particular agenda--whether or not that was actually the truth.  It certainly wasn't spelled out by the president, but supporters and detractors both strongly felt it was certainly implied.\n\nDoes this judge (Alito) or have any judges nominated by Bush or any other president truly have or had predetermined opinions on issues the court may address?  The altruist in me says, "No!  These judges have sworn to apply the law, and nothing but the law, to the decisions they hand down".  But the politician in me says, "Bush and his supporters have been salivating for years to stack the court with conservatives to challenge Roe v. Wade.  How can he not try and make that happen?"\n\nSo where does this leave Congress?  Forced to judge a judge by determining, right or wrong, if they will in fact use only the law in arriving in their rulings.  That they either have no personal stake in a decision or wouldn't allow it to influence them.  It leads to some strange and unusual exchanges between those questioning and answering.\n\nAnd when you factor in the partisanship inherent in any legislative process, it can and has gotten downright ugly.  Hearings for Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas immediately come to mind; I know there are many others.\n\nIn short, this is an imperfect system that must place an imperfect individual (in that they cannot be TRULY impartial) into a position that affects our nations' history.  Frankly, I'm surprised it's held up as well as it has over the years.\n\nI hope I've fairly addressed your question.  Thanks again for making me put on my thinking cap.  I need that every once in a while.
554457
No. Only Congress can legally declare war, so it has the power of the sword. (Except when certain executives take that power into their own hands.)  And it's true that Congress also has the power of the purse, but only when Congress isn't full of scaredy-cats who wouldn't say boo to a goose, much less say no to a president.
891396
Actually, they don't make us either stronger or weaker. \n\nThe rights they represent exist, with or without the amendments themselves.   The fact that the Constitution, which creates the federal government, recognizes their existence, merely defines us and our relationship with our government.\n\nThey don't make us anything at all that we aren't already. \n\nThe fact that some find them negotiable, now that might make us weaker, or at least something else.
828896
Only partially right.\n\nYou're missing an important part. Hmmm. Seems to be missing from the site you posted as well.\n\nFirst, if trying to construct an argument, you may want to pull facts from something other than a conservative spin house. By the way, the same goes for liberals. I'm tired of seeing people posting links to places of strong bias.\n\nAnyway, let's get back to this. The part your missing is when Clinton got the smack layed down on him.\n\nYou see, he had the authority in 1993 but he didn't use it  (or get caught rather) until a few years later. When he did, the courts basically said "Are you insane?". After that, Clinton had to go get FISA warrants.\n\nYou may be to young to remember, but there was indeed an uproar over this. At least, amongst the people I knew then (many of them liberals).\n\nMy view on the whole thing is to get rid of it. It's to dangerous in the hands of the executive, especially when said executive has granted himself to power to declare whether or not someone is an enemy.\n\nI don't want to see ANYONE with that power. Period. It goes against everything this country stands for.\n\n~X~
709789
Yes. Liberal nut-jobs are in charge of Congress.
933101
Can I get 10 pts if no one responds? \n\nYou gotta write about the balance of powers. How Supreme Court rules over the Congress.
234137
The growing importance of sectional interests reflect the dispute over tariffs.\n\nClashes occurred in Congress between representatives from different sections.\n\nClay wanted to promote economic growth for all sections.\n\nThe American System was a program Clay set out.\n\nTo help Northern factories, the American system called for high tariffs on imports.\n\nHigh tariffs would also reduce American dependence on foreign goods.\n\nTo make it easier and cheaper for farmers in west and south to ship goods to city markets, they made a better transportation system.\n\nThe American System never went into effect, because Congress spent little on internal improvements, tariffs remained high. \n\nSoutherners opposed paying for roads and canals that brought no direct benefits.
79021
Your question is unclear, however, with the separation of powers the Judiciary has nothing directly to do with statutes as legislated by the Congress.  It is the Congresses job to ensure that they are Constitutional.\n\nOnce enacted and applied, an individual who feels harm from that statute has standing to take it before the court.  Through judicial review that single court case can, through judicial review, make it to the United States Supreme Court.  That court can indirectly then make a decision as to the “rightness” of that statute as adjudicated in that single case.