Homeworks academic service


A discussion on the effects of separation of powers in the us constitution

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. 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. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days Sundays excepted after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

What are some of the weapons each branch is given by the Constitution to fend off encroachment by other branches? Which view of presidential power under the Constitution makes the most sense to you--the "strong" view or the "weak" view? Which view has the Court come closer to adopting? How should a history of congressional inaction in response to an assertion of presidential power be interpreted?

It is not obvious that the Court has the power to review presidential assertions of power. What do you think about the suggestion that the Court should refrain from reviewing these exercises of power under "the political question" doctrine?

  • The whole government is so rotten and dishonest that I can only protest;
  • Could it be argued that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure violate constitutional separation of powers principles?
  • Have they taken too much sentencing discretion away from trial judges and juries?
  • What are the alternatives?

Why do you think Congress came to rely so heavily on "legislative veto" provisions? What are the alternatives?

  • Among the many ways of evaluating justices, one is to measure their willingness to accept as constitutional "pragmatic" solutions to the problems of modern governance;
  • How should a history of congressional inaction in response to an assertion of presidential power be interpreted?
  • How should a history of congressional inaction in response to an assertion of presidential power be interpreted?

Among the many ways of evaluating justices, one is to measure their willingness to accept as constitutional "pragmatic" solutions to the problems of modern governance.

On such a scale, with respect to recent justices, might Justice White be called the "most pragmatic" and Justice Scalia the "least pragmatic" justice? The Court seems to view the power of removal as key to placing an official in one or another branch of government.

Why is the power of removal so important? Have special prosecutors made a positive or a negative contribution to public life? Do you accept Justice Rehnquist's argument that the Court should be concerned when one branch seems intent on increasing its power at the expense of other branches, but much less so when that is not the intent of an alleged separation of powers violation? Is Justice Scalia right in suggesting, after Morrison, we now have a "standardless judicial allocation of powers"?

What do you think about the guidelines of the U. Have they served to provide more uniform sentencing?

Have they taken too much sentencing discretion away from trial judges and juries? Could it be argued that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure violate constitutional separation of powers principles? Could Congress delegate all of its law-making power to a super agency and take a long vacation? Why would such a broad delegation violate the Constitution?

How far can Congress go in delegating its law-making powers? When are standards for the exercise of administrative discretion sufficient for constitutional purposes? What is the best argument for recognizing constitutional protection for claims of executive privilege?

  1. There would have been no impeachment inquiry, no impeachment, no concerns about the motives behind the President's military actions against terrorists and rogue states in the summer and fall of 1998, no spectacle of the United States Senate play-acting at adjudication.
  2. Paula Jones The impeachment saga of President Clinton has its origins in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought in Arkansas in May, 1994 by Paula Jones , a former Arkansas state employee. On such a scale, with respect to recent justices, might Justice White be called the "most pragmatic" and Justice Scalia the "least pragmatic" justice?
  3. They are all infamous, cowardly, and abandoned villains who, instead of wearing shoulder straps and ruling millions of people should have their heads shaved, their ears cropped, their foreheads branded, and their persons lodged in a penitentiary.

What would happen if the President were to ignore a direct order from the Supreme Court to respond to a legislative or judicial branch request for information? President Nixon promised to obey "a definitive opinion of the Supreme Court. Should the doctrine of executive privilege apply differently in impeachment proceedings? What's the case for making the President immune from suits for damages while in office?

They are all infamous, cowardly, and abandoned villains who, instead of wearing shoulder straps and ruling millions of people should have their heads shaved, their ears cropped, their foreheads branded, and their persons lodged in a penitentiary. The Supreme Court combines judicial wisdom and impartiality to a higher degree than any authority known to the Constitution; any any act which may be construed into or mistaken for an attempt to prevent or evade its decision on a question which affects the liberty of the citizens and agitates the country cannon fail to be attended with unpropitious consequences.

The whole government is so rotten and dishonest that I can only protest.

  • Have they taken too much sentencing discretion away from trial judges and juries?
  • It is not obvious that the Court has the power to review presidential assertions of power;
  • If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law;;;;
  • What would happen if the President were to ignore a direct order from the Supreme Court to respond to a legislative or judicial branch request for information?
  • What do you think about the suggestion that the Court should refrain from reviewing these exercises of power under "the political question" doctrine?
  • Among the many ways of evaluating justices, one is to measure their willingness to accept as constitutional "pragmatic" solutions to the problems of modern governance.

It is drunk with blood and vomits crime incessantly. Paula Jones The impeachment saga of President Clinton has its origins in a sexual harassment lawsuit brought in Arkansas in May, 1994 by Paula Jonesa former Arkansas state employee.

In her suit, Jones alleged that on May 8, 1991, while she helped to staff a state-sponsored management conference at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, a state trooper and member of Governor Clinton's security detail, Danny Ferguson, approached her and told her that the Governor would like to meet her in his hotel suite.

Minutes later, Jones, seeing this as an opportunity to advance her career, took the elevator to Clinton's suite. There, according to her disputed account, Clinton made a series of increasingly aggressive moves, culminating in a request for oral sex.

Jones claimed that she stood and told the Governor, "I'm not that kind of girl. Lawyers for Clinton argued that the Jones suit would distract him from the important tasks of his office and should not be allowed to go forward while he occupied the White House. Clinton's immunity claim eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously in May, 1997 against the President, and allowed discovery in the case to proceed.

Posner noted in An Affair of State: The public would not have been worse for not knowing about it. There would have been no impeachment inquiry, no impeachment, no concerns about the motives behind the President's military actions against terrorists and rogue states in the summer and fall of 1998, no spectacle of the United States Senate play-acting at adjudication.

The Supreme Court's decisions created a situation that led the President and his defenders into the pattern of cornered-rat behavior that engendered a constitutional storm and that may have embittered American politics, weakened the Presidency, distracted the federal government from essential business, and undermined the rule of law. A critical moment in the cascade of events that would eventually lead to impeachment came on December 5, 1997 when Jones's lawyers submitted a list of women that they would like to depose.

Included on the list the name of Monica Lewinsky.