courts as legislators
The purpose of this paper is to show that although not originally intended to, some our modern day courts in the United States have in essence become legislators. I will give a brief overview of the history of courts and site some cases where the decisions handed down or the opinions of the court have set precedent in the way the law is understood and enforced. As long as man has been on this earth there have been conflicts or disputes that needed to be resolved by a third party. By definition, a court is a.) a place where legal justice is administered b.) a judicial tribunal duly constituted for the hearing and determination of cases. The recognized existence of even primitive courts implies a relatively high degree of social organization and the need for systematic resolution of disputes based on established customs and rules of conduct. Courts have been set up to hear disputes between two or more parties. In medieval European history a Curiae was a court, or group of persons, who attended to a ruler at any given time for disputes of social, political or judicial purposes were resolved. It's composition and functions varied considerably from time to time and from country
The federal courts do not make laws, that is the responsibility of Congress. In 1178, Henry II took another step by appointing five Curia members to form a special court of justice, which became the Court of Common Pleas. The three branches of federal government that arose from this are: legislative (Congress), executive (President), and judicial (courts). It still rests with the Supreme Court to decide in upcoming weeks whether to review the 1968 decision. The interpretation of the laws and amendments they have reviewed, have dictated the way the police departments, other law enforcement agencies and courts do business, thus in my opinion acting as legislators in some form. With the last statement being said, through out the years the Supreme Court has decided cases or made statements of opinion on cases that have set precedent on how the law was to be interpreted. Additionally various confiscation measures where enacted, but never implemented, during the war had transferred the Fairfax land to the state. These three branches operate within a system known as "checks and balances", this means that although each branch is separate, the Constitution often requires the cooperation among the branches. At his trial, the State, over his objection, introduced the confession against him. to country during a period when executive, legislative and judicial functions were not as distinct as they were later to become. The new chief justice, John Marshall understood that if the court awarded William Marbury the commission, (a writ of mandamus- to force to deliver) the Jefferson administration would ignore it, and significantly weaken the court system. The rulings they have handed down have affected many individuals. Although President Adams had attempted to fill the vacancies created by this act before the end of his term, several of the judgeship commissions had not been delivered.
Common topics in this essay:
Supreme Court,
Escobedo Illinois,
Courts Legislators,
Catholic Church,
Article III,
Lord Fairfax,
Fifth Amendment,
William Marbury,
Miranda Arizona,
Federal Constitution,
supreme court,
ecclesiastical courts,
federal courts,
384 436,
law enforcement,
judiciary act,
supreme court power,
royal justice,
law interpreted,
curia regis,
set precedent law,
united supreme,
law enforcement agencies,
united supreme court,
enforcement agencies courts,
|
Acceptance Essays
