'9 politicians sitting on a bench.' Critically evaluate this description of the US Supreme Court
‘Nine politicians sitting on a bench.’ Critically evaluate this description of the US Supreme Court. The decisions of the US Supreme Court can have a significant impact on US society. In fact the Supreme Court only hears cases that it believes are of major constitutional significance. The impact that these decisions have on US society is almost always a divisive issue, and this has led to many people claiming that Supreme Court justices are as much politicians as they are judges. This essay will critically evaluate the view that the US Supreme Court is made up on nine politicians, rather than 9 judges. Appointment process One reason for the view that Supreme Court Justices are ‘politicians’ is due to the appointment process, which has been accused of being politicised. This is because nominees for the Supreme Court are often nominated and questioned based more on politics than on their skills as a judge, which is in contrast to the UK where Supreme Court judges must have been judges in the Court of Appeal, and are selected solely on merit, rather than politics[1]. In the US, the president nominates a candidate, which is more often than not based on politics rather than on merit, and then the Senate votes on whether to approve the nominee. The president always denies that any political consideration in their nomination, however it usually seems to be an underlying
There Are No Effective Checks On Presidential Power. Discuss
There Are No Effective Checks On Presidential Power The exercise of Presidential power requires agreement from another branch of Government, usually the legislature. The main exception to this principle is the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces because with over 3000 miles of ocean between the USA and its potential enemies, it was not expected that this would be a significant role when the Constitution was written. While there is a check on this power, since only Congress can declare war, the strength of this check is questionable as the President can deploy troops for a total of 60 days before getting Congressional approval. In addition to this, despite the fact that Congress has declared war just 5 times, the last being after the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbour, the US military has been in almost constant use in overseas conflicts, including Vietnam War and Iraq. Hence the lack of an effective check on Presidential power in this area. Furthermore, the Senate is required to ratify Presidential treaties which requires a two thirds majority, something that is fairly difficult. Without ratification, the treaty cannot be incorporated into US law. During the twentieth century, the Senate rejected seven treaties, one of which was in 1999, when the Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Yet, successive presidents have circumvented this by
Critically analyse the appointment and confirmation process for nominees in the US Supreme Court
Neema Daniel Critically analyse the appointment and confirmation process for nominees in the US Supreme Court The highest court of appeal of the US judicial branch consists of the chief justice, currently Justice Roberts, and eight justices, who are all nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, a role conferred by the Constitution. Justices are appointed for life which leaves the president with no power as to how many appointments they can make to the court. The appointment and confirmation process has been criticised for being heavily politicised in that nominees are chosen not on their merit but on their ideological philosophy. Thus the appointments and confirmation process have been criticised as being a political battleground between the two major parties. Whilst the process encourages the exercise of checks and balances, in that oversight is performed by the senate to confirm a nominee, surely this power can be abused? Robert Bork would certainly contend so. Politicisation is not unexpected as US Supreme Court appointment and confirmation process does not start from an independent body like the Judicial Appointments Commission in the UK. Thus the appointment and confirmation system does have
Assess the significance of federalism in the U.S.A
Assess the significance of federalism in the U.S.A Federalism, and all it stands for, underpins politics in America. The basic principle of American federalism is fixed in the Tenth Amendment (ratified in 1791) to the Constitution which states: "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." Federalism gives the executive its power but it also gives states a great deal of power as has been clarified in Dillon's Law. On many occasions, the Supreme Court has been called on to adjudicate what federalism means (usually in favour of the executive rather than states) but the Constitution put a great deal of faith in federalism when the Founding Fathers first constructed it. However the significance of federalism in the U.S.A is debatable. Proponents of federalism argue that one way federalism is significant is that it fosters state loyalties: Many Americans feel close ties to their home state, and federalism maintains that connection by giving power to the states whilst still allowing the executive to retain the ultimate power. This is significant as those anti-federalists are appeased through the power given to the states preventing the tyranny of a large executive whilst retaining a powerful federal government. Moreover federalism is a practice in pragmatism:
The congress of Vienna.
Social assignment The congress of Vienna was Sept., 1814-June, 1815, one of the most important international conferences in European history, called to remake Europe after the downfall of Napoleon I. It was brought together to restore a balance of power so that no one country could be in a position to dominate Europe as Napoleon had. The major characters involved in the Congress of Vienna included Alexander, the current Czar of Russia, Tallyrand who represented France, Castlereagh the representation of Great Britain, and the man considered to be most important in the congress of Vienna, Metternich, the representation of Austria. Metternich (1773-1859) was a very pivotal figure. He was the basis of the organized coalition that triumphed over Napoleon. Previous to the congress of Vienna, Metternich had belonged to the old order of courts and kings. Metternich hated the new force of nationalism and liberalism. He believed that liberalism was a dangerous disease carried by middle class malcontents and believed that domestic order and international stability depended on rule by monarchy and respect for aristocracy. He considered himself the defender of European civilization. During the congress of Vienna (1814-15) he blocked Russian plans for the annexation of the whole of Poland and Prussia's attempt to absorb Saxony. He aimed for and succeeded in creating a German
"Supreme Court Appointments are always controversial" Discuss
'Supreme Court appointments are always controversial' discuss There are nearly always arguments over whether an appointment to the Supreme Court was correct or not. However, we can see that the court is pretty balanced between conservatives and liberals. Some might say that Supreme Court appointments are controversial simply because of the nature of them - they are political appointments. Some may also say that these appointments must be controversial, because a Supreme Court appointment - is for life, and they are also granted the power of judicial review. Therefore if there is no debate over a nomination - surely there must be something wrong, as it would be extremely hard to have a 'perfect' appointment per se. Others may say that the controversy of the appointment really depends on which seat is up for grabs. Judicial nominations are considered extremely important - firstly because they occur infrequently, secondly, the appointments are for life, thirdly, there are only nine members of the Supreme Court, so therefore In appointing a justice, a president is replacing one ninth of the court membership and lastly because of the power of judicial review as I said earlier. One might say that Supreme Court appointments are controversial because of the amount of power which is vested in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds the power of judicial review over both the
SHOULD BRITAIN ADOPT A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION?
SHOULD BRITAIN ADOPT A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION? Currently Britain's constitution is an unwritten one. This doesn't mean that it is literally unwritten but that it is set down in many different documents. Additionally there is no set bill of rights as there is in The United States of America. The constitution of the U.S.A. is written and codified. In America a bill of citizen's rights was set down in the mid 1770's and is entrenched in the constitution. In order to change the bill of rights a two thirds majority is required in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. A consequence of this is that it is very hard to change the U.S. constitution. It is, in fact, so difficult that since its creation, it has been changed only twenty six times. Ten of these changes were in the first five years of its existence. A constitution can be described as "a set of rights, powers and procedures that regulate relations between public authorities and individual citizens." Put simply, a constitution governs political behaviour. Andrew Heywood describes the constitution as "a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of government, regulate the relationships between them and define the relationship between the state and the individual." Heywood also suggested four ways of classifying a constitution; by form, is it written
Analyse the claim that nowadays 'the president's cabinet performs no useful functions'.
Analyse the claim that nowadays 'the president's cabinet performs no useful functions'. Many people's first impressions of the US cabinet can be deceiving, as it can put forward the idea that they bring both the administration and the bureaucracy together. A cabinet rank department's role is to be responsible for areas of policy like, among many others, Defense, Education and Transport. Each of these departments is headed by a secretary who represents it in cabinet. The president appoints these heads of departments, but these must be ratified by the senate. The president's cabinet are mainly responsible for providing the president with advice and carrying out his decisions. The cabinet has a membership of just over twenty, and includes such people as the heads of executive departments, e.g. Donald Rumsfield who is the Secretary of Defense and Rod Paige the Secretary of Education. It can also include figures like the UN Ambassador and the Chief of Staff. President's, upon election, usually affirm that the cabinet assembled would become an important stage in all decision making, however, this rarely happens. Some presidents have strived for a cabinet that would work on the foundation of collective decision making. Ultimately, the cabinet can only be as strong as the president allows it to become, this was iterated by president Abraham Lincoln when at the end of a cabinet
"Presidents have only the power to persuade" discuss.
"Presidents have only the power to persuade" discuss. The president of the United States of America is seen around the world to be the most powerful man on Earth. However, many believe that his only real power is the power to persuade. The checks and balances of congress and the Supreme Court over the president are great, and without their support he has relatively little power. A president cannot get any legislation passed if he does not have the support of the senate and or the house of representatives. If a president wanted the US to sign a new treaty, the senate would have to ratify it with a 2/3 majority. If a president wanted new legislation, he must submit it to congress and persuade both houses to vote for it. The president cannot pass legislation without congress, and it may be checked by the supreme court. Once the president has submitted the piece of legislation, he can only try and persuade both houses to go along with it. There is no system by which the president can pass legislation without the checks and balances of congress. The president supposedly has the power to submit the annual budget aswell, however, as with other legislation, this must be checked and approved by a majority in both houses of congress. As far as legislation goes, the presidents options are very limited. The last two years of Clinton's presidency he faced a republican controlled
