Justice Thomas agreed with Justice Scalia’s analysis and, join his opinion, however wrote separately, to reiterate the rule: that unless the Congress explicitly states (otherwise), “the court interprets a statutory term in accordance with its natural meaning.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U. S. 471, 476 (1994)5. Thus, in absence of a congressional directive to the contrary, “shall” must be construed as a mandatory command. Justice Thomas states that “If the Congress wants the Court to give “shall” a nonmandatory meaning, it must explicitly state that by specifying the consequences for noncompliance or explicitly defining the term “shall” to mean something other than a mandatory directive by choosing words that carry such meaning; ‘should’, ‘preferably,’
This paper will be focusing on Robert Casey better known as “Bob” Casey the Senator from Pennsylvania. Casey was born and raised on April 13, 1960, in Scranton Pennsylvania. Casey; “graduated from The College of the Holy Cross in 1982 and spent the following year teaching fifth grade and coaching eighth-grade basketball in inner city Philadelphia for the Jesuit Volunteer Corps”. (Senate.gov) Later on, he received his law degree from Catholic University in 1988. He married to his wife Teresa and has 4 children. In 2002 Casey wanted to follow his father into running for governor of Pennsylvania, however, he was defeated, later becoming the “treasurer” in the elections of 2004. Casey was first elected to the senate in 2006 as a Democrat, showing as one of the second highest victories since “1920” against an incumbent Senator. Later in 2012, he was re-elected becoming the first Democrat Senator into serving a full term and into being re-elected as a Pennsylvania Senator. Casey has become and followed the step of his father who was also a governor.
“The principle of stare decisis does not demand that we must follow precedents, which shipwreck justice.”
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
... “inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice”? (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 105) With an end reminding us of the tough qualifications judicial offices must have met to get into office. “Hence it is that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the station of judges.” (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 106)
Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder and the primary writer of the Declaration of Independence. Many will assume he was a racist and pro-slavery, but unless one were to look deeper into why Jefferson would even own slaves, this assumption is very believable. I would say Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite, but he was justified hypocrite. As I think about why would Jefferson would want the abolishing of slaves, but on the other hand own slaves, it seems a bit hypocritical, but we must take a moment and really think was his hypocrisy justifiable? During this era nearly every successful white man owned slaves, so why would Jefferson not own them himself? Slaves were not just considered property, but they had valuable characteristics about them. They
It is simple to be confused by the federal court judges and their decisions and how they go about them and how they are in their position. Personally, I always thought they were elected by the Supreme Court or someone or something higher than them. But I was very surprised to know that they were appointed (assigned a job or role to). This leaves the judges from having to go through a process of campaigning and running against others. Although by being unelected officials it has both pros and cons. Pros being, that they are trusted enough to handle cases that go to this point and being able to make a decision under the law to better the society. Cons being, if a federal court judge makes any misdemeanor or crime they have the ability to be impeached
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the strong foundation for the diverse country of Canada. They uphold various beliefs and values Canadians may have. Under the constitution in 1982, the CRF (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was entrenched by then Prime Minister Trudeau. The CRF has 4 rights; Equality, legal, democratic and mobility, there is also 4 freedoms; of Conscience and Religion, of thought, belief, expression and media, of peaceful assembly, and Association. If people feel that their right and/or freedom has been violated, they can go to court by using a “Charter Challenge. ” A charter challenge is when something inequitable or unfair has been done, the citizen can pursue the court case stating that something violated their rights and/or freedoms. All the rights and freedoms help
I have learned that some cases go to trial pretty fast and then others take longer. I found that people can wait up to 9 years for trial and they still get convicted as guilty, but there are some that get their cases dismissed. Which is far because it did violated the right to speedy trial so which mean the case gets dismissed.
Although Justice Thomas has written more dissenting opinions, he has also written some majority opinions including: ACLU v. Ashcroft, which decided that “COPA’s reliance on community standards to identify material that is harmful to minors’ does not by itself render the statute substantially overboard for purposed of the First Amendment”. United States v. Scheffer, which ruled that according to Military Rule of Evidence 70...
The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law by Charles F. Hobson examines the judicial career of John Marshall, as well as the legal culture that helped to shape his political beliefs and his major constitutional opinions. The author sources much of his information from the formal opinions that Marshall issued during his judicial career. From these writings, Hobson presents Marshall 's views on law and government and provides explanations for what in Marshall 's life influenced those beliefs.
John Marshal’s role as chief justice of the Supreme Court had a profound impact on our government. He is considered to be one of the most influential leaders of our nations. His legacy is carried on through the decisions made by various court cases presented to the Supreme Court. Marshall’s rulings in the cases strengthened our nation. These decisions defined the role of the American government, recognized the Indian Natives as a nation, and promoted economic growth.
Dye, Thomas R. , L. Tucker Gibson Jr., and Clay Robinson. Politics In America. Brief Texas Edition ed. New Jersey: Pearson, 2005.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the most recent example of how Congress or the President has used, justifying its necessity because of this clause. The entire reading can be found at (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf). Through my research, I stumbled upon a website that detailed the initial tone of the ACA and is a very good example of “Necessary and Proper” language found in the US Constitution. It also demonstrates how Congress and the Supreme Court can make changes in order to facilitate the needs of the law. On Mar 27, 2012 the Supreme Court heard argument on the central issue in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act. The Obama administration consistently argued that the individual mandate is essential to the effectiveness of ACA and argued that if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, then the ban on preexisting conditions, minimum expenditures on health care, and other essential regulatory protections for health insurance consumers must fall with it, as they are inextricably intertwined with the individual mandate. The issue could have also raised fundamental questions regarding our modern federal government. If the Court chose to issue sweeping doctrinal formulations of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, or appeals to liberty of contract interests in striking down the individual mandate, the
The Supreme Court is essential to the United States government, even more so, the judicial branch. The Supreme Court aids in protecting the Constitution of the United States, and as a result, protects the American people’s liberties.
as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate