this isnt homework dont ask anyways just a general discussion about these 2 very specific topics:
Do you agree or disagree with Alexander Hamilton's statement that the "Judiciary is the weakest branch of government." Explain and discuss the powers of court in relation to the executive and the legislature. Please be specific and use examples.
How do political backgrounds influence the interpretation of the Constitution and it's application to the law? How did this effect the courts ruling in Citizens United case.
fun topics right? i personally cant wait to see your responses!
1. I agree to disagree 2. I don't do politics. Extra words to meet the 50 word requirment Seventeen Camel Judo Afro Florida Watermelon Gay Homosexual Lesbian Yo-yo This Is Tottally Homework Quasimodo Hammer Troll Toilet Apple Epic Mafia Will End In 2k57 Forty-Two I Hate Myself Angry Hungry Hangry Last Word
And about the United Citizens United case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 2010, ruled (5–4) that laws that prevented corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent “electioneering communications” (political advertising) violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. In so doing the court invalidated Section 203 of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)—also known as the McCain-Feingold Act for its sponsors, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Russ Feingold—as well as Section 441(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which the BCRA had amended. The court also overturned in whole or in part two previous Supreme Court rulings: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).
Immediately perceived as historically important, the decision generated intense controversy outside the court. Some hailed it as a resounding victory for freedom of speech, while others criticized it as an overreaching attempt to rewrite campaign finance law. Among the critics was Pres. Barack Obama, who remarked in his State of the Union address in the House of Representatives one week later that the decision would “open the floodgates for special interests…to spend without limit in our elections.” His criticism provoked one of the Supreme Court justices in attendance, Samuel A. Alito, to break decorum by mouthing the words “not true.”
Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."
1. Hamilton who said in his Federalist #78 “the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” would understand this increase in power nd would have no objections. Many people think he would. And of course, powers which the Court has now in his time would be understood as threatening. But also it is in his time when the slavery was approved by law and many other sections of law that would be not acceptable today. In short, if Hamilton could travel through time and see all changes in society he would approve judicial power, but if he would find out about Courts power without knowing the whole history of changes he would be shocked.
2. To say in topic with Hamilton, Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.
In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind
i agree with your findings. it also was interesting to learn about the different levels of court systems within the government. the appellate court? wow! i know right? i need 50 words to respond to two other answers! amazing. how are you xela? love american government quasimodo
