v. Fact: Trying Terror Suspects in Federal Courts,” 2018). Likewise, the United States has maintained offshore detention facilities, most notably the one at Guantanamo Bay, in order to conveniently and credibly circumvent the pesky legal constraints that would otherwise apply if detention centers sat more squarely on American soil even though technically such offshore locations count as American soil.
Where Should Terrorist Suspects Be Tried?
Currently, there is no single standard by which terrorist suspects are tried and prosecuted. Terrorist suspects can be processed through a civilian federal court system, or through the military court system… Continue Reading...
to as general jurisdiction, which means that all cases not within the scope of the federal courts are within the jurisdiction of the state courts (“State Courts and Federal Courts,” 2018). All state courts are bound by the US Constitution, of course, but their primary task is to interpret state laws and state constitutions. For example, some states have additional protections or restrictions on certain behaviors, and state courts enforce such laws and ensure compliance. Although the state courts lack national authority, 90% of cases in the United States are heard in the state courts. These include crimes that are violations of state laws, including… Continue Reading...
supreme law, affirming the authority of the Court over judicial review. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the federal courts are allowed to overturn the decisions of the other arms of government in the event that they act contrary to the Constitution (GROSSMAN). This is one of those "checks and balances" that are the core of the national government's function.
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, beat John Adams, a Federalist in becoming America's third president. Right before Adam's retirement, he introduced new positions in the judiciary, which he gave to his political partners. After Jefferson became president, James Madison, the State Secretary, refused to submit the commissions… Continue Reading...
public was required to pray; it was a voluntary provision. Yet federal courts recently ruled that Rowan County’s practices violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, particularly the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” (“Introduction to the Establishment Clause,” (n.d.). Even a cursory reading of the Establishment Clause shows that prohibiting commissioners from praying during the public meetings violates the First Amendment by “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Therefore, when the Supreme Court finally makes its deliberations in Rowan County v. Lund, it should… Continue Reading...
their opinion, the Constitution accorded federal courts excessive power, to local and state courts’ detriment. They contended that federal judges would be overly far away and thus unable to mete justice out to average citizens.
According to Federalist Paper no. 51, the American government naturally prevented the formation of factions, thereby safeguarding its citizens’, rather than governmental authorities’, interests. The pro-ratification group – the Federalists – claimed there was no need for a Bill of Rights, and that enacting one would serve to erect a paper barrier which restricted, rather than safeguarded, citizens’ rights. But, ultimately,… Continue Reading...
defense' and diminished capacity, 2017)
The US Federal Rule
The Insanity Defence Act at federal courts new requires the defence to show clearly that they were not in charge of their faculties at the point of committing the unlawful act. This approach is viewed as retrogressive and a return to the old standard. It also came with the Insanity Defence Reform Act that was enacted in 1984. It has guidelines for sentencing defendants with a history of mental illness (The 'insanity defense' and diminished capacity, 2017).
Compare and Contrast these tests? Examine this in light of John Hinckley what happened here. Is one test… Continue Reading...
power to take action on this issue do not necessarily need to be responsive to the protesters. The federal courts have since challenged the Trump administration’s authority over DACA, but no real solution has emerged yet (Wilson, 2018). The protests may serve as a way to stimulate political action on this important front. According to Yoshikawa, Suárez-Orozco & Gonzales (2016), “5.3 million children and adolescents are growing up either with unauthorized status or with at least one parent who has that status,” (p. 4). Compassionate policies like DACA can play an important role in promoting positive outcomes for young immigrants, whose… Continue Reading...
