Leslie Zepeda
5/14/2014
Political Science 101
Corruption
The principle of separation of powers where the executive, legislative, and judicial functions of government are separated into independent bodies, is the key elment of governinence in democratic nations. Seperation of powers requires multiple individuals to initiate, propose, or run the agenda, and it is also designed to protect the government form political tyranny. However, although separation of powers is a key element in democratic nations, it does not prevent the misuse of power. The constitutional design that does prevent the misuse of power ids is known as checks and balances. Check and balances empower the separate actors to evade or sieze the actions of other actors. This is often done with the practice of judicial review, vetoes, or regulatory oversight who strive to ensure all political power is used accordingly. Although the constitutional design of government has been practiced for centuries, the abuse of political power remains an issue in many counties includes developed democracies. The corruption is done in a variety of ways such as covering the spectrum form enacting legislation for thje benefit of smaller groups of supporters or voters to more direct corruption as receiving payments for political favors. Many individuals who reside in democratic nations believe separation of powers combined with checks and balances ensure the government remains fair and incurropt. However, this belief is very difficult to prove because of the issue in defining an operatonal measure of checks and balances for a cross-country seeting, and missing counterfactuals in the seperatoin of powers. In this paper I will show recent work in poilitical agency withj data on corru...
... middle of paper ...
...means the Court cannot issue advisory opinions on legislation. In addition, a party bringing suit must have standing (a direct stake in the outcome) in order to challenge a statute.
The most important rule of judicial restraint is that statutes are presumptively valid, which means that judges assume legislators did not intend to violate the Constitution. It follows that the Burden of Proof is on the party that raises the issue of unconstitutionality. In addition, if a court can construe a disputed statute in a manner that allows it to remain intact without tampering with the meaning of the words or if a court can decide a case on nonconstitutional grounds, these courses are to be preferred. Finally, a court will not sit in judgment of the motives or wisdom of legislators, nor will it hold a statute invalid merely because it is deemed to be unwise or undemocratic.
...ice it when the said sources contain no clear information regarding the topic at hand. In situations like these, the Supreme Court is essentially free to do whatever it wishes, and often exercises judicial activism. Thus, there is a disconnect that exists between the theoretical practice of judicial review, which is reasonable and justifiable, and the actual practice of judicial review that is often used in the Supreme Court, which may potentially allow the Judiciary to surpass the powers granted to it in the Constitution and as stated by Hamilton in Federalist 78. There are two main sides to the debate about how Justices should approach judicial review: the strict constructionists, who advocate for strict adherence to the text of the Constitution when deciding a case, and the loose constructionists, who advocate for more freedom for the judges when deciding a case.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.
...und statutes unconstitutional, concluding: The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine (Treanor).” The result and impact of this case is that it established Judicial Review as a Court power, which states that the Supreme Court or Judiciary branch has the right to review executive and legislative actions and see if they are constitutional. Judicial review is an “example of checks and balances in Americas’ modern governmental system” ("Judicial Review."). Because of the Marbury v. Madison case, all cases submitted into the Courts are subjected to judicial review to check constitutionality.
Supreme Court Justices demonstrate judicial restraint when they refrain from acting as policymakers, deferring to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, as long as the policymakers stay within the boundaries as established by the United States Constitution. Stare decisis, a legal principle where precedent decisions are followed, plays a major role in judicial restraint. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts Jr., showed judicial restraint in his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) (Root, 2012). In this opinion, Chief Justice Roberts clearly explains judicial restraint: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,
These passages present a discussion about arguments concerning the Supreme Court's power. This is an important debate for America since the Supreme Court can alter the principles that by which we live by. The two positions argue whether or not the judiciary has too much power. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that the judiciary has little power to implement their decisions. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that despite this point, they still practice judicial review. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that the judiciary has too much power is the strongest position, the position supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that
Journalism proved to be a valuable tool in the fight to reveal the hidden secrets of Watergate. One newspaper in particular, “The Washington Post,” dug up important and necessary dirt on the those involved in Watergate. Two young journalists working for “The Washington Post,” Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, were assigned to the Watergate case (Kilian 28). The efforts of these two men provided a significant lead into the investigation of the scandal. The two spent much of their time working on the cases and were able to discover a money link between the burglars and the Nixon reelection committee (Kilian 28). They also interviewed members of Nixon’s reelection committee that wanted to talk.
In today’s light, the Progressive Era is seen as a time period where people’s lives changed for the better, but none of that change would have been possible without muckrakers exposing the numerous problems that lied hidden from the American public. With the corruption of government officials, dangerous and unhealthy working conditions for young children, and poverty-ridden slums in cities, this article aims to expose three of the most prominent problems of the Progressive Era.
The framers of our great nation all had their own interpretation of how the States should run and after many proceedings, debates and ratifications; the Constitution was born. Too many, there are aspects of the law that cannot be understood simply by reading that document. Much of the confusing interpretations to this document are in part because of customs in the early establishments of the States. Additionally, state and federal laws have been filled in due to the absence of details that were left vague or because the meaning of words and phrases have changed over time. Because of this, the Constitution is continually reinterpreted as it is applied to concrete situations. There are numerous methods for interpreting the Constitution. Through the centuries, legal scholars and justices have advocated to fit the needs of specific cases. The most prominent methods include those that rely on textual interpretation, original intent, precedent, constitutional principles, logical reasoning, or the living constitution. Many judges rely on a combination of these methods to reach their decisions. (Constitutional Interpretation, 2015). In American History. Retrieved from
“Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which laid the foundation for the current U.S. national judicial system by creating a complex three-tier system of federal courts,” (Neubauer 53). U.S. Supreme Court is at the top, consisting of a chief justice and five associate justices, 13 district courts at the base, each presided over by a district judge (Neubauer 53). In the middle was a circuit court in every district, each composed of two Supreme Court justices, who rode the circuit, and one district court judge (Neubauer 53). It is known that, “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish,” (Neubauer 52). It is stated in Marbury v. Madison that, “The power remains to the legislature, to assign original jurisdiction to that court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited; provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States,” (Marbury v. Madison). Ultimately, Marbury v. Madison declares that “the power of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written,” (Marbury v.
...ral and political notions. While this tendency of the Court is deplorable, the truth is inescapable that the cases allowing for many of our most basic rights cannot be justified simply by reference to the Constitution. Hence, the Court has invoked the generality of the Constitution to define and defend vested rights and general principles of democratic society. To conclude, without the ability to move beyond the explicit text of the Constitution, a great number of crucial decisions in U.S. history must be overturned. The simple fact is that the interpretive model cannot allow for the justification of many of our most sacred rights. While criticisms as to the justification of the power of the Court to discern the values of contemporary society are legitimate, history as well as the citizens of this society have long declared the non-interpretive model superior.
A key feature of the unwritten constitution is ‘the Separation of Powers’. This exercises the idea of independence within ‘different functions of government’; it is represented by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Separating the three prevents a dangerous occurrence where power is entirely centralized in one group. Cooperating with one...
Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the presidential system, which would be a more desirable system for a democratic government.
Authority in a society is a necessary evil which when unfettered, results in the abuse of power. Power has long been considered a corrupting and a disrupting force in function and in influence. Underlying motives and greed fuel those who seek to gain and or abuse this power. The Crucible examines this twisted force as it corrupts societies’ clergy, blinds its justices, and empowers those who seek to abuse it. Arthur Miller shows how power can be a corrupting influence and how it can blind the judgment of authoritative figures.
Some people said that corruption is rampant in all governments, So that it is not unknown to any ethnic group, region and continent. It cuts across faiths, political systems, religious Denominations and affects both young and old people. Fraud can be found in public and authoritarian rule;...
Corruption and Globalisation - Both of them have been so pervasive in recent years. According to a BBC survey, corruption ranked as the second biggest problem people concern in the world and globalisation ranked first. Are there any links between the two? To what extend they are related to each other? And what effect do they have?