Can someone restate Alexander Hamilton's arguement about "judiciary power" ect.?
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.
98420
This was neither Conservative nor Liberal, it was Constitutional based relative to the VI Article of the Bill of Rights\n\nFacts of the Case \nGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.\nQuestion Presented \nDid the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?\nConclusion \nIn a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."\n\n************  \n\nTo the individual suggesting to boycott this question because it seems to be a homework question.  \n\nThat may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the function of the Yahoo Question and Answer system.  People ask questions and others answer.  The motivation of asking (or answering) the questions aren’t important.  If someone is trying to do their homework through this system, they are the ultimate loser because they don’t do their own research.  It is their problem, not ours.
954225
Indeed, very dangerous. Judges are intended to interpret the law but have been using their power to create the law. That is very bad. Impeachment or recall are the only real options for activist judges.
323146
strong; The powers of Congress are enumerated in several places in the Constitution.  The most important listing of congressional powers appears in Article I, Section 8 (see left) which identifies in seventeen paragraphs many important powers of Congress.  The last paragraph of Article I, Section 8 grants to Congress the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers"--the "Necessary and Proper Clause."  The proper interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause was the subject of a heated debate between such important figures as Alexander Hamilton (who argued that the clause should be read broadly to authorize the exercise of many implied powers) and Thomas Jefferson (who argued that "necessary" really meant necessary).  Hamilton's more flexible interpretation makes possible a strong central government, whereas Jefferson's narrower interpretation strengthens states' rights.
573184
1.  A.  Traffic courts have limited jurisdiction.\n\n2.  D.  WPA was supposed to help America through the Great Depression.  What actually got America out of the Great Depression was the buildup necessary to fight World War II.\n\n3.  A.  Don't quote me, but I believe it's Oregon.\n\n4.  A, possibly C.  The rights read to someone are actually the Miranda rights, coming from the Miranda vs. Arizona case in 1966 (I'm not sure if that's the case that you're trying to quote in C).  The right to remain silent stems from the Fifth Amendment right to "not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself" (paraphrased).  Marbury alludes back to the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1801, where Marbury was a midnight appointment of outgoing president John Adams, who James Madison, the new Secretary of State, refused to grant credentials to.
1023212
I beg to differ with Swordsmith, his reasoning is a bit dull (pun intended).  For example, he sites the First Amendment to undergird his argument.  Said amendment I'll quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  The plain intent in historical context is this:  the federal government cannot *establish* a particular Christian sect *by federal law* as the official church of the nation (as was the Anglican church in Britain) nor prohibit the freedom of worship (*free exercise*) for other Christian groups outside of the Church of England within the nation.  As an example Virginia, like some of the other states, did have a state established church [1].  The state established churches at the time were not disestablished by the ratification of the Bill of Rights, but rather by each states' legislature...and definitely not because the legislators thought that they should prohibit the state government "from taking any religion's side" with regard to the foundation of law.\n\nAs to this nation's founding document -- the Declaration of Independence [2] -- to say that it religion (in context, the common precepts of Christianity to be found in the Holy Bible) had nothing to do with law is ridiculous.  Let's take a look:\n\n* The signers based their actions to separate from Britan upon the Law of God (paragraph 1).  Again, in historical context we are not talking about any god: not Allah, nor Budda, nor Krishna, nor the Force, nor a secular general concept of a higher power, etc. but rather the Almighty God revealed in the Bible. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."\n\n* That the rights they had were given by God and saw them as truth, not their opinion against the opinion that sided with King George III, Parliment, and their sympathizers in the Colonies (paragraph 2).  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  If Swordsmith is correct then the King and Parliment were correct in rejecting the Colonies representatives appeals based on this basis (surprising since the Colonist's view had its source in English law.[3])  Sir William Blackstone, author of the Commentaries on the Laws of England and a contemporary with our nation's Founders, explained this foundation at length. (By the way, the Commentaries were a top seller in the American colonies.) The following Blackstone quote is a bit long, but I include it because it gives you some context of what foundation our nation's founders' stood.\n\n"Law, in its most general form and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey.\n\nThus, when the supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When he put that matter into motion, he established certain laws of motion, to wh
498589
Our current president claims "executive privelege" over everything.  He has NOT ONCE excercised his veto power, the first president in history to never veto a single tiny bill from Congress.  His answer is to instead is to sign a congressional bill into law and then immediately write a signing statement saying how the law does not apply to him, or simply issue an executive order reversing whatever the bill said when it doesn't suit him.  If that isn't unchecked power, I don't know what is.  His cronies have also been instrumental in passing laws dismantling the bill of rights, it is just now starting that federal judges are getting such cases challenged, but the media isn't reporting the rulings (Scalia totally grilled the Bush administration, the very people that appointed him).
604640
Alexander Hamilton is on the ten and he wasn't president.  He was the first secretary of the treasury and a founding father.
1059255
Well, how can you separate the judiciary from their own political interpretations of the law?\n\nThere will always be, not partisanship per se, but philosophical differences in what the Constitution means, despite the numerous and quite specific interpretation as written by those who actually crafted the Constitution.\n\nThere are those who view the Constitution as a flexible document that means nothing but what they decide it means, which could change for no reason. There are those who [correctly] view it as a rigid document that specifically defines the limits of government, and is a standing contract between the government and the peoples.\n\nThere are those who inflict us with their own personal social philosophies, and effectively legislate from the bench, a severe Constitutional violation, which should result in impeachment, if Congress had any ethics or integrity.\n\nBut there are too many jurists who freely violate the Constitution and ignore it, in order to implement their philosophical social visions. More people should be outraged about this.
708809
Over 200 years ago, the Scottish historian Alexander Tyler stated that democracies exist only until people realize that by capturing government they can enrich themselves. After that, though the form of democracy may endure, the substance will be lost.\n\nThoreau was an idealist, and like all others of his ilk, he failed to regard the negative consequences of his own propositions. How does the thought strike you that there is no contradiction between the all powerful, all controlling state, and what Thoreau says?\n\nHow does the proposition strike you that what people want (as expressed by the democratic process) is greater security from want, and greater fulfillment of desire? The growth of government power isn't some back-room conspiracy of a few power hungry maniacs -- it's the direct result of politicians giving the people what they're crying out for -- MORE!!!!\n\n[EDITORIAL NOTE: If this concept doesn't quite make sense; please refer to Dostoevsky. His section from "The Brothers Karamatzov," entitled, "The Parable of the Grand Inquisitor" deftly lays out the chilling argument that people want to get rid of the burden of freedom as quickly as they can].\n \n\nIt is simply the nature of power that any government big enough to give you what you want, of necessity, must also be a government big enough to take from you everything that you have.\n\nIf you really want "limited government" you can have it. But you can only have it if you are prepared to accept total responsibility for every outcome in your life, and not ask for government assistance when things go wrong. And the incontrovertable fact is, the people have rejected this notion. The "power and authority of the individuals" as expressed at the ballot-box has spoken over the decades, and the politicians have simply listened, and given the people what they want.\n\nWhat Thoreau is naively assuming is that people actually want government off of their backs, and are willing to assume the full burdens of their existences. He's wrong. People want the freedom to do as they please; but when things go badly, they want (and indeed, expect) the government to step in to make things right. This duality of desires inevitably leads to decadence and a diminution of the human spirit. This is EXACTLY what the great prophet, Aldous Huxley tried to warn us about in his masterpiece, "Brave New World;" and people still don't get the message. "The People" want to be taken care of; and out of respect for the "Will of the People," the government is increasingly giving the people what they want. But what the people want is ultimately destructive of the very spirit of freedom the people claim they wish to protect. \n\nThe journalist H. L. Mencken once said that Democracy is the theory that "The common man knows what he wants, and deserves to get it -- good and hard." He's right.
763369
Nothing is inevitable. You never know which side a Justice will come down on. I would like to believe they weigh the arguments and then place them in a context of what is allowed by the Constitution. Activist judges ruling by judicial fiat from the bench are not good for anyone, no matter which side of the political spectrum they fall on.
943709
Looking more closely at this issue, I can see why you want a specific source.\n\nThe only person who I can find that claims Justice Thomas said this is Frank J Ranelli, in his piece "One Nation Under “Whose God is it Anyway?” from October 27, 2006.  As a columnist, he doesn't seem to feel the need to cite his sources.\n\nAnd the thing is, IF Justice Thomas did say this, it is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he has said at other times.  Specifically, in the case of Elk Grove v. Newdow he puts in a long opinion about what the constitution has to say about the government's ability to suppress or endorse religion (link 1, below).  The specific quote that interests me is this:\n\n"The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments."\n\nIn other words, Justice Thomas is of the opinion that it is PERFECTLY OKAY for any one or even all states to declare a state religion and eforce it.  Just not the federal government.  In other sections of his opinion on that case, he even says that other decisions which made other forms of religious expression illegal are just plain wrong.\n\nThus, if he DID make the statement that Ranelli says he did (which I cannot find an actual source for anywhere), it would seem to be contrary to his views expressed when he is actually doing his job.  A legally enforced, punishable, state-based religion is apparently peachy keen to him.  Yikes.
136309
You’re asking a great deal, whole sections of libraries hold many books just on this one subject and you could spend a lifetime studying the nuances associated with this Amendment.  For example, It states. . . . . \n\n“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”\n\nThis has roots in the Articles of Confederation which state in Article II. . . . \n\n“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”\n\nThese were not simply words to the Founders, during the convention (4 December 1787), James Wilson (Delegate of Pennsylvania) said. . . . \n\n“ . . . Sir, I think there is another subject with regard to which this Constitution deserves approbation.  I mean the accuracy with which the line is drawn between the powers of the general government and those of the particular state governments.  We have heard some general observations, on this subject, from the gentlemen who conduct the opposition.  They have asserted that these powers are unlimited and defined.  They have already been answered by my honorable colleague, (Mr. M’Kean) therefore I shall not enter into an explanation.  But is is not pretended that the line is drawn with mathematical precision: the inaccuracy of the language must, to a certain degree, prevent the accomplishment of such desire.  Whoever views the matter in a true light, will see that the powers are as minutely enumerated and defined as was possible, and will also discover that the general clause, against which so much exception is taken, is nothing more than was necessary to render effectual the particular powers that are granted. . . ”\nContinuing he stated, “ . . . But let us suppose – and the supposition is very easy in the minds of the gentlemen on the other side – that there is some difficulty in ascertaining where the true line lies.  Are we therefore thrown into despair?  Are disputes between the general government and the state governments to be necessarily the consequence of inaccuracy? . . . ”\n\nMy point is that the Founders were both concerned and not of the same mind as to the consequences of the Constitution in the relationship between the general government and the several State governments.  This resulted in a wide difference as to the need of a Bill of Rights including the 10th Article.\n\nIt is also interesting to note that at the time of the convention, all States (colonies) had existing constitutions and these constitutions provided incentive to the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Here with one example, from The Declaration of Rights for the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. . . . . \n\n“Chapter I.  That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable Rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defining life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”\n\nEven after ratification differences arose and these few following selections from United States Supreme Court decisions demonstrate that reality.\n\nFrom the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court case, Gordon v. United States [1864].  “The reservation to the States respectively can only mean the reservation of the rights of sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which had not parted from by that instrument.”\n\nAnd then in the case of Kansas v. Colorado [1907].  “This Amendment disclosed the widespread fear that the National Government might, under the pressure of a supposed general warfare, attempt to exercise powers which had not been granted.  With equal determination the framers intended that no such assumption should eve
382226
Facts of the Case\n\nThompson was Sergeant-At-Arms for the House of Representatives. Hallett Kilbourn was subpoenaed to testify before and deliver documents to a Special Committee established by the House of Representatives to investigate the bankruptcy of J. Cook and Company. He appeared but refused to answer questions and did not deliver the documents. After a report back to the full House, Sergeant-At-Arms, John G. Thompson, was ordered to take Mr. Kilbourn into custody. When the Sergeant-At-Arms brought Mr. Kilbourn before the House to be questioned by the Speaker of the House, he again refused to answer questions or produce the documents. He also refused to offer an explanation of his refusal. The House resolved that Kilbourn was in contempt and should be held in custody until he agrees to testify and produce the requested documents. \n\n \n\n \n\nQuestion Presented\n\nDoes the House of Representatives have the right to compel testimony?\n\n \n\nConclusion\n\nRarely. “...there is in some cases a power in each House of Congress to punish for contempt.” That power is qualified in the next paragraph, “The cases in which they can do this are very limited,” and they added, “...we cannot give our assent to the principle that, by the mere act of asserting a person to be guilty of a contempt, they thereby establish their right to fine and imprison him, beyond the power of any court or any other tribunal whatever to inquire into the grounds on which the order was made..”\n\n \n\nThe Court also reaffirmed the rights of Legislators to speech and debate protection from arrest while Congress was in session.
1019398
J. D. answer is correct. The checks and balances principle comes from Montesquieu's views on power equilibrium. The three powers model requires an additional clause that guarantees that no power will be able to act on it's own. So Constitutional laws may be written by the legislative power, but they will be administered by the judiciary while the executive is obliged to enforce them.
542800
Trying to figure out how this new "War on Terror" justifies suspension of our Constitution.  In 1812, with a foreign enemy burning down Washington D.C., NO PART of the Constitution was re-written or suspended.  Emergency provisions did not ever give the president the power to unilaterally enforce the law before.  This was in the face of our absolute destruction with an very real enemy on our soil.  Now we have a fantasy enemy over-seas that takes occaisional potshots at us, which we created through our own failed foreign policies, so we now need to give up every fundamental legal and expression freedom we have?  Do Americans just not have balls these days?  Why aren't the real conservatives trying to "conserve" our damned Constitution which has weathered EVERY CRISIS before this?  I just don't get it.\n\nIf you want to hunt me down, I'll be easy to find in the postage stamp sized "Free Speech Zone".  When I was a kid, everywhere was a Free Speech Zone...except maybe in church.
601281
This is actually not a separation of powers issue, the Speaker is mistaken. He is creating a protection that does not exist.\n\nCongress is allowed to create its own rules in governing itself, but that is only for how it takes care of business not for whether an office is off limits to law enforcement for an allegation unrelated to specific legislation offered by that member.\n\nThe Constitution also protects members of Congress from legal liability for things they say while in their capacity as a legislator, but again this is only so a member cannot be intimidated into not speaking his mind or acting on his conscience or on the will of his constituents.