There are many ways in which congress are influenced on how members of congress vote which come to be how to get data , constituency interests and last personal likes. Information gathering is when the member becomes familiar with the main arguments from both side of the policy issue. The arguments could be based on a variety topics such as statistics or data, constitutional or legal analysis, and moral rationales. Also, when they gather their information they look at factors such as cost to taxpayers, the overall benefit that it will have on society, and the perceived consequences for the future. When members of the congress begin gathering information they have access to neutral, research that has good backed up analysis not only this but this issue has to already be a prop. Proposals from the Congressional Research Service, which is a non-partisan group of expertise. They focus on the committee reports, newspaper articles, editorials, statements from the Administration, and another great factor they play is letters from other Members also give them a sense of the main arguments surrounding an issue. In addition, some Members may choose to rely on information provided by advocacy organizations with a specific point of view. Members spend a lot of time looking for an accurate picture of how most their voters feel about specific legislative proposals. They do not focus solely on the letters or calls received by their office because they understand that a lot of their voters will not take the time to contact them. They are also fully aware that those voters and groups with a very passionate view on a subject will organize mass mailings or a flood of phone calls or visits that may not accurately reflect the views of everyone. So instead of relying only on the voices of those voters who actively volunteer their opinion, most Members will engage actively in outreach to a broader spectrum of the electorate. Virtually every Member of Congress goes home several times a month to meet with voters, seeking them out at public events, holding open office hours and town meetings, visiting shopping centers and other community centers. They closely follow public opinion surveys, and often undertake polling of their own voters. Members are keenly aware that they have a responsibility to reflect the viewpoint of most their constituents in their work in Washington, and that if they fail to read the pulse of public opinion in their District or State accurately, most the voters in that area will find someone else in the next election who does. Most Members arrive in Congress with a specific viewpoint on the issues of they are facing, and a known political stance. They are elected after repeatedly speaking and explaining the reasoning for their opinions during their campaign for office. They do not arrive as blank slates that are waiting only for the directives of others and the voters know this and take it into account. Each member’s own personal histories and key beliefs influence their voting decisions in ways that can’t be helped nor ignored. Those core values may be driven by religious faiths or ethics. Issues with a moral component does not confine it’s self to categories. A Member’s ethnic heritage, gender, or family history can also influence their view on a specific issue, even the way they was brought up could play apart in their voting decisions. In the end, voters tolerate exceptions to the rule based on personal principles, and every Member has issues where their personal judgment overrides other arguments. Members core values and personal identities do matter when they decide how they should vote on matter that will make a difference in society. I believe that personal judgement is the most influential factor of how a member of congress votes because at the end of the day after the voting is said and done the individual member must be able to live with the decision that was made. Most find it hard to be objective when their felling get it the way. I believe that no one can be a 100 percent objective because everyone has an opinion and will voice their opinion.

• The President and the executive branch is a more powerful branch of the government than the Legislative Branch because the President has legislative power, he chooses the heads of all executive departments and agencies, and he is the commander in chief. The president as the chief formulator of public policy, he has a major legislative role. The president can veto any bill passed by congress and unless two-thirds votes from both houses are obtained to override the veto the bill will not become a law. Majority of the legislation that the congress deals with is begun by the executive branch. The president can propose legislation during annual and special messages that are sent to the Congress and should congress part without acting on the proposals the president has the authority to call it to a special meeting. The president is also the head of the political party and can influence the people which can influence the course of legislation in congress. The president can sign a bill into law and once it is signed only the supreme court can veto it by declaring the bill as unconstitutional. Also, if congress dismisses before a bill is signed and the president takes no action after 10 days then it’s called a pocket veto and the congress must start the process of making the bill into a law all over from the beginning. The President obtains most of his power from the Executive branch. Inside that branch of government the laws are enforced. The president have limits to his power but his still has the most power.
• Judicial review is the idea that the U.S. system of government that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review by the judicial branch and possibly be invalidated. The best-known power of the Supreme Court is the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution also known as judicial review. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, which is a legal order convincing government officials to act in agreement with the law. Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Courts established that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. The Court also established its power to strike down state laws that are found to be in violation of the Constitution. The Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right has been violated. Parties who are not satisfied with the decision made by a lower court may petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask the court to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review. The Court is under no obligation to hear these cases. It only does so if the case could possibly have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value. The Court accepts 100-150 of the 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. Four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote to grant a stay. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court. One of the most important doctrines in Western law is that of stare decisis. Its a Latin term which means to stand by decided cases. In modern jurisprudence, however, it has come to take on a life of its own, with all precedents being presumed to be well-founded, unbiased legal decisions, rather than political decisions, and presumed to have both the authority of the constitutional enactments on which they are based, plus that of the precedents on which they are based, so that later precedents are presumed to be more authoritative than earlier ones. The doctrine also tends to give great weight to the opinion in the case, even to the point of treating the opinion as though it was law, even though only the order and findings have the actual force of law, and only in that case, and an explanation of how the decision was reached is only dictum, or commentary. Judicial activism is an approach to the exercise of judicial review, or a description of a particular judicial decision, in which the judge is generally considered more willing to decide constitutional issues and to invalidate legislative or executive actions. Although the term is used quite often in describing a judicial decision, its use can cause confusion, because it has several meanings, and they are frequently not agree on whether it correctly describes a given decision. The term activism is used in both political rhetoric and academic research. In academic usage activism usually means only the willingness of a judge to strike down the action of another branch of government or to overturn a judicial precedent, with no implied judgment as to whether the activist decision is correct or not. Activist judges enforce their own views of constitutional requirements rather than deferring to the views of other government officials or earlier courts. Defined in this way, activism is simply the antonym of restraint. It is not pejorative, and studies suggest that it does not have a consistent political valence. Both liberal and conservative judges may be activist in this sense, though conservative judges have been more likely to invalidate federal laws and liberals more likely to strike down those of the states. In political rhetoric activism is used as a pejorative. To describe a judge as activist in this sense is to argue that he decides cases on the basis of his own policy preferences rather than a faithful interpretation of the law, thus abandoning the impartial judicial role and “legislating from the bench.” Decisions may be labeled activist either for striking down legislative or executive action or for allowing it to stand. In the early 21st century, one of the most criticized Supreme Court decisions in the United States was in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), in which the court allowed the city to exercise its eminent domain power to transfer property from homeowners to a private developer. Because judges may be called activist for either striking down government action or permitting it (in Kelo they permitted it), and because activism in political usage is always considered wrongful, this sense of activism is not the antonym of restraint. Less controversially, but less frequently, a judicial decision may be called activist in a procedural sense if it resolves a legal issue unnecessary to the disposition of the case.
• The Fourteenth Amendment states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Brown V Board was the consolidation of four cases arising in separate states relating to the segregation of public schools on the terms of race. In every one of the cases, African American minors were denied admittance to certain public schools because of laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. It was argued that such segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were denied relief based on the precedent set by the case Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the “separate but equal” doctrine that stated separate facilities for the races was constitutional as long as the facilities were “substantially equal.” The Regents of the University of California v Bakke case had four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed. He casted the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

5. The Mapp v Ohio case originated in Cleveland, Ohio, when police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a proper search warrant. Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court. Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search, and eventually took her appeal to United States Supreme Court. At the time of the case unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts. Miranda v. Arizona was a court case that took place in the State of Arizona in which Ernesto Miranda, a 22 year old male, was accused of raping an 18 year old female in 1963. Upon his apprehension, Miranda was presented with a confession requiring his signature; Miranda underwent a police interrogation that was reported as spanning upwards of 2 hours – within his interrogation, he made a full confession, agreeing that he did so without duress, force, or threat. However, Miranda’s attorneys argued that not only did the arresting officers not make Miranda aware of his right to representation, but they also neglected to advise Miranda of his right to remain silent in order to avoid any nature of self-incrimination. The Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In overturning Betts, Justice Black stated that “reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.” He further wrote that the “noble ideal” of “fair trials before impartial tribunals in which ever defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.”

CourseLover

(12)

Status NEW Posted 08 Aug 2017 01:08 PM My Price 10.00

----------- He-----------llo----------- Si-----------r/M-----------ada-----------m -----------Tha-----------nk -----------You----------- fo-----------r u-----------sin-----------g o-----------ur -----------web-----------sit-----------e a-----------nd -----------acq-----------uis-----------iti-----------on -----------of -----------my -----------pos-----------ted----------- so-----------lut-----------ion-----------. P-----------lea-----------se -----------pin-----------g m-----------e o-----------n c-----------hat----------- I -----------am -----------onl-----------ine----------- or----------- in-----------box----------- me----------- a -----------mes-----------sag-----------e I----------- wi-----------ll

Not Rated(0)

• Buy Answer