wheather the descretion of president & governor in perdaning a person should be subject to judicial reviw?
961120
No.\n\nThe Pardoning process is based on subjective factors. It cannot be handed over to judges, who are trained to only look at the objective.
104226
It depends upon the jurisdiction.  Federal judges are appointed by the president.  Their appointment is for life.  State judges are either elected, or appointed by the  governor.  Judges appointed by a governor are usually subject to a retention vote every 6 years.  The most progressive plan for selecting state court judges takes place when a panel consisting of both non-lawyers and lawyers interview applicants and select their three favorites.  The governor picks from that group of 3.\n\nAlso, there are generally no "civil" or "criminal" judges.  Most judges have both types of cases on their dockets.  But judges in some jurisdictions have rotating assignments and hear only one kind of case (divorce or juvenile, for example) in 6-month intervals.
1091419
The whole idea is to make sure that due process is served.  The laws and appeals processe are set so that people (for the most part) are not wrongly imprisoned.
1141541
Litigation doctors or patient or Gov.??\n\nwhat we need is enlightenment
1144732
Impossibility !\n\nThis could be due to some Act of God or due to some circumstantial reasons. \n\nbut if any judge give these kind of order the it would be impossible for him to continue as a judge.\n\n-k-
908834
The judicial branch has the power of judicial review.\nThe president can veto bills.
178340
Wow! These liberals never cease to amaze me.\n\nNo, a President cannot remain in office after a second term for ANY reason. Section 1 of the 22nd Amendment states:\n\n"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."\n\nNow, the danger lies in electing someone like Al Gore or John Kerry whose main concern is what the United Nations thinks. Both have stated that they would work in close cooperation with the United Nations. And if you think we have problems now, wait until Kofi Annan is calling the shot in our country.
290293
In case something happens to the governor, or when the governor is out of the state, the Lt. governor would be in charge. It is like a vice president
267641
Maybe when he actual does something illegal.  The constitution does protect politicians too, you know.  Just like you he's innocent until proven guilty.
578845
I BELIEVE IN ALMOST ALL COUNTIRES THE JUDGES ARE MANIPULATED BY THE POLITICIANS. ITS ALL A SCAM, THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD ABANDON THE LAWS THIS IS WHAT KEEPS SOME OF US IN LINE.
429794
well... a U.S. president is simply a "C E O" of the corperation U.S.... My Main Concern is not company's that get their power by putting the little man out of business... my concern would be triing to create a system that is fair for all, without a hirarchy of classes, it makes no differnce in classes to me.... We are all people in a corp. domainated society...."The Beast System"
562850
I repeat, it is a federal crime under 18 USC Sec. 871 to threaten the life of the President of the United States. This "question" attempts to evoke such threats.
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.
16305
Yes. A president can serve a maximum of two 4 year terms. Originally, this wasn't the case, a president could serve as many terms as he wanted. This changed when the 22nd amendment was ratified, limiting the President to 2 terms. \n\n"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"
467596
a US governor must be of 30 years of age at least, and must have been a citzen of the usa for at least 20 years...\n\ni think :P
677927
Actually, the suggestion that the Constitution be ammended to allow foreign born persons to be elected President seems to have come out of Mr Schwartzeneger's supporters. The idea was that there are people being held in Guantanamo who have the right to RUN, so why shouldn't Arnold be able to  also? I think the time window for this idea has closed, simply because the Governor's personal popularity has sunk since assuming power.
1176385
OK, separation of powers is different from the checks and balances.\n\nThe separation of powers makes it clear that only the courts can interpret the constitution and whether it allows for or a law or executive order or not.  It makes it clear that only the president can issue executive orders (ie going to war etc.) and finally that only the legislature shall pass laws. ( I know the last two seem to cross over with the presidential veto and the fact that some laws are proposed by the white house... but it the separation is there.)\n\nThe checks and balances is that no one branch has supreme power and that each can and will be "checked" by the others.  The courts can overturn a law or executive order.  The president can veto a law and appoints the bench. And the legislature can overturn a veto and can amend the constitution to change the issue before the bench.\n\nI don't think either superseded either, they are both intertwined.  I do not think though that anyone should be monitoring the branches (except for the public).  If judges were to watch the pres, then the pres would have the right to watch judges and congress and congress would have the right to watch the judges etc.)\nWhat we need to do is hold our representative officials responsible for their actions and make sure that the best candidates are put forth on ballots.