Branches of Government Was Structured

¶ … Branches of Government

Government was structured by our American forefathers, who were highly suspicious of power and especially of monarchies or dictatorships. Therefore, the forefathers structured our government in a system of checks and balances, ensuring that no one branch of the government had complete control over the processes that make our government work on a day-to-day basis, or on legislation, or deciding if the legislation enacted was legal according to our Constitution. While an elected official might have opportunity by virtue of his/her office to defraud the citizens in collusion with special interest, no one elected official or combination of elected officials could realistically conspire with the other two branches in a way to gain support for fraud and deception on the scale of all three branches. Not only did the forefathers have a good working vision of what they wanted to create for our government, coming together as lawyers, doctors, journalists and people from other disciplines in life, they experienced and anticipated human nature at its best and at its worst. In other words, the three branches of the government were created to protect Americans as a nation from any one person or any one branch of the government attempting to wrestle complete control and power over the people (Samaha 6). Our forefathers created this system so that we, the people of the United States, are the ultimate authority, and not just because we choose those who run the government, or because we choose people in whom we invest the authority to appoint people on our behalf. We, represented by the balance crated within our system, are the ultimate authority because this government was created for us in that manner (Samaha 6). It is our heritage as a nation of people.

This brief essay is a review of the three branches of American Government: the Executive Office (president of the United States; Legislative, Congress and the House of Representatives; and the Judicial Branch, the courts at the various levels of authority and jurisdiction, whose decisions are, if necessary, reviewed for purposes of comporting with the U.S. Constitution by the highest court in America, the Supreme Court of the United States. The judicial branch and the courts are the main focus of this essay.

While we can examine each governmental branch independently, no one branch is really first. Each branch is interlocking and interacting. The legislative branch is part of a system that checks or looks over the other two branches. Moreover, it balances the other two branches in terms of function and power (Samaha 6). The legislative branch consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to enact legislation and declare war. It also gives the right to confirm or reject many Presidential appointments. The House of Representatives is composed of about four hundred thirty-five elective members, divided between the fifty states in proportion to their population. The District of Columbia, the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and five other territories of the United States are represented by six non-voting members in the House. To be elected as a member in the House you must be twenty-five years old, a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and a resident of the state they represent. The length of office is two years. The Senate half of the legislative branch is composed of one hundred Senators, about two per state. The ratification (confirmation or sanction)

of the 17th Amendment in 1933, state legislatures choose the Senators. Not by popular vote like it has been sense the change to the Amendment. They are elected to six-year terms by of course the people of the state. The terms are staggered so that about a third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years. To be considered for a Senate seat one must be thirty years old, U.S. citizen for at least nine years, and of course a resident of the state they are trying to represent.

The Judicial Branch of our government is perhaps the real power source in our government. The first two examples are the district and appeals courts handle the majority of the cases brought to federal court. There are federal court districts in all of the states. A federal court may only hear a case if it has both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction (Samaha 8). What this means is that the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and over the parties who are involved in the case. Federal courts typically have jurisdiction only over areas covered under federal law. The federal district court would not normally have jurisdiction over subjects covered under state law. The other form of federal subject jurisdiction involves suits that involve a citizen of a different state or a citizen of a foreign nation who is either in the U.S. legally, on a visa or passport, or illegally as alien (Sisk and Urban 237). Once jurisdiction has been established, the case is heard by a federal judge according to a defined set of principles and protocols.

The federal judge's role is to interpret the laws that Congress has written. When Congress writes a law, the meaning and wording of that law is put into practice by federal judges when they interpret that law in the context of their cases. The federal courts are instilled with the power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (Sisk and Urban 2-3). While Congress produces laws, it does not work with those laws itself, leaving that task to the judicial branch. This separation of duties is one of the core concepts in our three-tiered governance system. Each branch has a defined role, and those roles intertwine it with one another to produce a functioning government and judiciary. This separation of powers plays several important roles in governance: it prevents concentration of power; and provides each branch with means to ward off encroachment on its authority by the other two branches (Sisk and Urban 35). In addition to the federal district courts, significant roles are played by the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court.

The district courts are supported by the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. The two other components of the judicial branch typically see cases that have already passed through the district court system. The appeals courts review appealed district court cases (Sisk and Urban 1). Thus, when a party does not feel that the district court made a correct legal decision regarding its case it can appeal the decision to the court of appeals. The court of appeals will then review the case in order to determine if a legal mistake was made. If it finds such, it will grant an appeal but if it does not find a legal mistake, it will likely reject the appeal.

The third and final example is the Supreme Court, which has appellate jurisdiction authority in accordance with the Constitution (Sisk and Urban 3-4). The Court functions primarily to hear appeals of appeals, taking on only the most significant matters of law for final consideration. The district and appeals courts, subordinate to the Supreme Court, must honor the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court (Samaha 7). In doing this, the judicial system has the power to enforce the laws enacted by Congress, or to find those laws in violation of the Constitution.

The courts, at all levels, to the arrest process when considering cases of a criminal nature. All alleged perpetrators of a crime have a right to due process, which begins with informing the suspect of his Fourth Amendment rights, known as Miranda, or Mirandizing the suspect prior to booking the suspect (Champion 183). After booking, they see a judge who informs them of the charges against them and decides if they can be released before trial. If they make bail, they do not have to remain in jail, if they do not, or they are a threat in any way, they remain incarcerated. Defendants, who live within the community of the court's jurisdiction, and who have employment histories without serious or multiple prior arrests often are released on their own recognizance or with a written promise to appear at subsequent court dates (Samaha 432). There can be other conditions of release, as well, all determined by the judge. The next steps are the preliminary hearings. These can consist of a probable cause hearing, a preliminary hearing, or a grand jury hearing. These hearings decide whether there is enough evidence to try the suspect on the specified charges. Next is the arraignment, where the suspect states if he is guilty or innocent. The preliminary hearing begins the "Pre-Trial" part of the process.

The next stage in the process is the pre-trial motions, where the lawyer offers motions to continue or dismiss the case to the judge. Following this stage, the Voir Dire begins, which includes jury selection, the preemptory challenges, and there is "discovery" which allows attorneys to ask for information from the other attorneys, and plea-bargaining (Samaha 332). If a plea bargain is reached before the trial, often the trial will not continue. The suspect will be sentenced and then continue to incarceration. Plea-bargaining is a legal tool, which keep the courts from becoming too clogged (Champion 208). This ends the Pre-Trial phase of the criminal court system.

Next in the process is the trial itself. Most people who enjoy courtroom dramas will recognize this phase of the process. Many trials are pleaded out, which means the main characters in the process are the prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the judge. When a case does go to trial, juries are selected, and are generally composed of 6 or 12 peers, chosen with equal input and approval by both the prosecutor and the defense (Samaha 329). The prosecutor, usually working for the county or state, offers their evidence against the suspect, while the defense counsel presents evidence meant to clear his client of wrongdoing. The judge (and jury) attempt to decide which side is telling the truth, and how to punish the suspect. One important aspect of the trial is that the defendant is always presumed innocent until proven guilty (Samaha 334). The trial moves through several phases.

The trial begins with opening statements from both attorneys. They then offer the main facts to the jury, giving them evidence and attempting to sway them to their side. After all the evidence is presented, they make their closing arguments. Usually, the state presents its closing argument last. If there is a jury, the trial then goes to the jury to decide, after the judge gives them his instructions (Samaha 338). If there is no jury, the judge decides whether the suspect is guilty or innocent, and what price they will pay for their crime. There are many alternatives to sentencing. There is also community service, suspended sentences, and sometimes the suspect is committed to a mental or addiction institution for treatment. Sentencing and serving the sentence is the "Post-Trial" part of the process (Samaha 363). After sentencing, the criminal goes to jail, serves time, and is released on parole, or, for lesser crimes might do community service, ending the process (Samaha 363).