Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Federal Courts
On Linda Greenhouse's Op-Ed: "Lessons Maybe Learned"
Linda Greenhouse in her New York Times article titled Lessons Maybe Learned reminds us that the federal courts still exist, despite the weakening of Constitutional protections for privacy, free speech, and due process, and against cruel and unusual punishment since 9/11. She opens her opinion piece by relating her sentiment of the almost invisibility of judicial branch in the post-9/11 America. Of course this is an overstatement intended to catch the attention of readers, because numerous cases have been heard and decided, such as challenges to military tribunals, indefinite detentions of 'enemy combatants', and elements of the PATRIOT Act. Yet, Greenhouse seems to have captured the arguably pervasive feeling that the federal courts have been effectively sitting on the sidelines while the executive branch and the Congress set domestic...
Greenhouse attempts to remind us that the federal courts have acted primarily as a check on the obvious power grabs that Congress and the executive branch have engaged in during the post-9/11 period. She gives several important examples, such as protecting its jurisdiction in Guantanamo Bay, holding the Bush Administration's unilateral establishment of military commissions unconstitutional, and reestablishing at least some semblance of due process for enemy combatants.
Greenhouse reminds us that the federal judiciary did not succumb to the post-9/11 sentiment that seemed to sweep the nation into a unified uber-patriotic voice calling for a War on Al-Qaeda and eventually Saddam Hussein, despite indications that the power-brokers in Washington viewed public sentiment as a perpetual Constitutional 'get out of jail free' card for the executive branch. In support of this…
Works Cited
Greenhouse, Linda. "Lessons Maybe learned." New York Times 7 Sept. 2011. Web. 10 Sept. 2011.
Federal Judiciary On Wednesday morning, right before the Supreme Court justices were about to begin their day, Justice Kennedy put a 24-hour hold on a Ninth Circuit Court mandate nullifying same sex marriage bans in the states of Nevada and Idaho (Denniston, 2014). The temporary stay on the Ninth Circuit's ruling is to allow ban opponents to present their side of the issue. This ruling surprised everyone because last year the
S.B. 1070, ACA, AND FEDERAL PREEMPTION 1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption S.B. 1070, the ACA, and Federal Preemption Tenth Amendment The Tenth Amendment was intended to limit the scope and power of the federal government, thereby preserving some measure of state autonomy (Lash, 2006). The Tenth Amendment accomplishes this by stating explicitly that the federal government can only exercise those powers enumerated within the U.S. Constitution. All other powers are left to the
Federal Courts There are three branches of the federal government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The federal courts were established by Congress, which is given the power to establish them in the Constitution. The Constitution also empowers the Congress to establish the jurisdiction of the federal courts, determine the number of judges needed in the federal court system, to confirm Executive appointments of judges, and to manage the judiciary's
Week 5 2. First, the Parkers were contractually obligated to pay the late fees because the fees were not exorbitant and were part of the parties' lease contract. However, unless the lease contract specifically says that the late fees could be charged as additional rent, then the landlord could not consider the late fees additional rent. If the late fees cannot be considered additional rent, then the Parker's failure to pay
Snyder v. Phelps The First Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and prohibits the making of any law " impeding the free exercise of religion," infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances." Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, in the 20th century,
Determination of Federal Court of Appeal in the case of Canterbury vs. Spence Canterbury filed a lawsuit against Spence in the United States. In this lawsuit, Canterbury alleged that Dr. Spence had shown negligence when performing laminectomy on Canterbury and failed to inform him fully about the risks involved in the surgery. In addition, the lawsuit argued that Dr. Spence had negligent as he allowed Canterbury to remain unattended to following