The Unites States government has several measures of checks and balances in place so the government can stay true to its purpose given by the Constitution. The Federal Courts are not exempt. They are the Judicial Branch of government, and must observe the constraints of the Constitution. Yet, there is no specific mention of the court’s ability to enforce limits on presidential power. The President is the Commander in Chief, the head of the Military, so do the Courts have any ability to limit the presidential powers in the context of war and incidents abroad? What power does the President then possess if the Courts have any limits on his power, and how should those limits be enforced?
The Constitution of the United States has left these specific matters unanswered, and has given room for interpretations by the United States Supreme Court. The Courts have given extensive answers to the specifics to each case that crosses its path, but the question of the role the courts should play, the answer, very little. The Federal Courts in the United States need to act on the President’s power only when the President is about to cross a Constitutional line. The President has powers vested to him by the Constitution, and if needed, can be used deliberately and quickly without delegating to every branch of the Federal government. The Courts however, should be an ever-present thought in the President’s mind. They should have the powers to strike down a presidential act on a case by case basis, with that threat the factor in the President’s mind. As long as the President uses powers that stem from the powers granted to the office by either the Congress or the Constitution, he should be allowed to act.
As we take these specific constitutional questions individually, a clear path will become evident for the direction of the court to proceed in order to follow its path intended.
The first question to be addressed is the Federal Court’s ability to enforce limits on the President’s power, especially in the time of War or in issues of Foreign Policy. The only court mandated by the Constitution is the United States Supreme Court, and it is given very specific powers in Article III of the Constitution, none of which grant it the ability to over see any legal Presidential acts. Any act by the President that is in direct and obvious conflict with a statute passed by congress or the Constitution, however, can by revoked by the courts. In clear cases, that is enough, but what of other cases in witch the line of legality is not so clearly defined, or in emergencies, has never been defined before? This is where, I believe, the court must allow the President certain liberties. As long as the President shows from where he has been granted the powers he is requesting, or using, depending the situation, the Federal Courts should allow him to follow the path he sees fit. The President of the United States is granted the position of Commander in Chief of the Unites States Army, and must be allowed to maneuver as efficiently as possible, both to protect the live of the military as well as the citizens of the United States, at home and abroad.
The courts agree with this in times passed. In times of External Affairs, as is defined by Justice Sutherland in the case United States v. Curtiss Wright Corporation 299 U.S. 304 (1936), the President has the ability to act as he sees fit. The President only has the power enumerated to him either by Congress or the Constitution when concerning internal affairs, but in the case of external affairs, it is an entirely different mater. When the colonies broke away from the Crown in Brittan, they did so as a unit, as a collective, and therefore, able to function as a single entity in foreign affairs, not as a body with independent parts. Each colony did not jock for position as in the Senate or the House of Representatives, at as a single being. There is only one branch of Government where there is a single being, the President (Fisher 255).
Yet, the courts should, and have, shown the power and the willingness to restrain the President from crossing the proverbial line. In Youngtown Co. v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952) the United States Supreme Court struck down an attempt of the Truman administration to seize the steel mills of the United States. Here was a case where the President pulled a power out of thin air. There were methods President Truman could have used to seize the production of the steel mills, but he did not use them. He believed that as the President, during a time of national crisis, he could do what is best for the country unilaterally. As noble and well placed his sentiments might have been, there were not constitutional, and there is where the Supreme Court stopped him. President Truman had used a presidential power that had no merit, and therefore was struck down by the courts. Had President Truman made a decision with the specter of the courts looming behind him, he might have taken a different, constitutional path, but because President Truman did not, he is a perfect example of what the Courts should do if a President uses a power that is not granted nor derived from either a law or the Constitution (Fisher 272).
The second question is what powers the President has if the Courts can constantly interfere with a presidential power. The Courts, as we have shown earlier, do have the ability to limit many of the Presidents powers, and it is rightly so if the President ever crosses the line constitutionally. As we have discussed, the President is free to act as long as the office does not break a law or the constitution. Yet the President must and does have very specific powers that may be enforced when the need arises without the worry of the Courts interference.
During times of war, there is a need for the Commander in Chief to act quickly, decisively and without the fear of actions being turned back. Often, during times of crisis, the President must act. During the Constitution Convention, there was the debate on the wording and the placement of the war powers.
The debate was on how to word war. It was between make war and declare war. The decided on “declare war” because they wanted to leave the President the power to repel sudden attracts (Fisher 288). This is a power that is vested to the President directly by the Constitution. The President is the Commander in Chief and is responsible for the protection of the Country. Without a doubt, the Framers envisioned a single man able to command the Military in order to defend the country from an attack, able to repel invaders. This is not a power that the Courts can or should interfere with. The Founders understood this, and there fore, gave the Senate, the body that represents each state equally, should declare war (Fisher 288). The do not want the Executive to be the military arm of the government, and the power should never be left to one man. The War Powers Resolution was instated to curb the President’s ability to conduct war without first consulting the Congress, but has, in turn, given the Executive a much clear way in maneuvering around Congress. As the powers of the president were pitted against the War Powers Resolution, the courts sided more often the not, supporting the constitutionally given right of protecting the country from enemies abroad (Fisher 291).
In both Dellums v. Bush 752 F.Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1990) and in Campbell v. Clinton 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 200), the Federal Courts stood with the Presidents, and allowed them to act in any way the saw fit in order to conduct to use offensive military actions, without the consent or consultation of the Congress. The Courts again left this specific power of the President alone, refusing to interfere on several reasons, and in the end, differing to the Executive in cases of war.
We have come to see that the federal Courts do hold the power to limit all but a few presidential powers, yet their must be a method for the Courts to apply equally across party lines and time itself. If the courts had the ability to conclude a single presidential power void, either by claiming it unconstitutional or, more likely, striping it from a single President who used the power in such egresses way that fear motivated the Courts into acting in behalf of the people.
Any act by the President, standing alone, should be under review and fall under the ability of the Courts to limit, excluding the war powers discussed earlier and in both Dellums v. Bush 752 F.Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1990) and in Campbell v. Clinton 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 200). The act of that particular President should be reviewed and subject to the Courts, not any power in whole. If the Courts had the ability to strip the power of the President, then the Federal Courts would be the supreme power in the land, not beholden to the votes and the influence of the electorate. No, the Courts are to serve as the balance of power and legality in this measure as they do in any other case. Should a particular President decided to disobey the Constitution or an act of Congress, then the courts should have the power to place injunctions on the act the President is trying to accomplish, hindering him impotent. The power, however, should be left untouched, ready and waiting for successive Presidents to use as they judge fit within the context of the Courts and the Congress ruling.
This logic applies to all domestic and most foreign affairs powers, but does not apply to the natural powers granted to the Executive by the Constitution. Now, of course this disclaimer need not be mentioned, for the overall and permeating rule that the Courts should and shall use to limit the powers of the Presidency is from were the Executive claims his power stems from, either the Constitution or and Act of Congress.
As shown above, neither the Courts nor the Executive is immune to the Checks and Balances set forth by the Constitution and, through both Congressional act, the war powers resolution and others, and Federal Court rulings, Youngtown Co. v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579 (1952), the Federal Courts have followed a path very similar to the one set forth by the Framers of the Constitution. They have given the Executive the power to repel attacks on the nation without intrusion, but have interfered, both domestically and abroad, when the President has broken the single rule that dictates the relationship between the judicial and executive branches in the arena of the presidential powers, and that simple rule is this, the Courts will defer to the President in the application of his powers, as long as he can logically show from where the office of the President can show the root of the power.

The Power of the Supreme Court

In the Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, explains the Powers of the Judiciary, specifically the United States Supreme Court. Within these three sections, the Founding Fathers gave every specific rule for the Supreme Court to follow. Yet, even with these specific rules, the Constitution was not always implicated about the exact functions of how the rules were to be enforced when the Executive and Legislative Branches Openly Violated the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution, regardless, does not grant the Power of Judicial Review upon the Supreme Court of the United States.
There are two points in where the Constitution may give the Courts a form of Judicial Review that slowly evolved into form that we saw it take during Marbury v. Madison, one in Article III, section 2 and the other in the Supremacy Clause Article VI of the Constitution (pg. 36). Yet even these sections in the Constitution do not grant any implicit or explicated Power of Judicial Review as we know of it in Marbury V. Madison. Even taking these issues into account, the Supreme Court does not hold any supreme power over either of the other two Branches of the Federal Government. It is more likely that it is the weakest of the three branches because it is the one that has the potential to wield the most power.
In Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, there is some unique language that has the potential to give the Supreme Court a different, weaker form of Judicial Review. The Constitution, while setting the specifics of Jurisdiction for the Supreme Court of the United States, states that “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under authority;”(pg 494). Even within the Article of the Constitution that specifically explains the power of the Judiciary, and the section that explains the jurisdiction, there is no explicated granting of Power of Judicial Review to the Judiciary. Understandably there is a debate on whether the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to hear cases of Law, and potentially, could evolve into the case of its logical conclusion, that a Law may be considered Unconstitutional. Yet that is a pale shadow of the power that Chief Justice Marshall explained in his decision of Marbury V. Madison. This power is more likely Legeslative Review. It grants the Supreme Court the ablitlity to strike down a law of the Congress as unconstitutional. The Court, however, holds no ability to police, regulate, or in any mater, interrupt with the functions of the Legislative and Executive Branch, as explained by Chief Justice Marshall.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”(pg 495) This is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, found in Article VI of the Constitution. This could possibly be interpreted that the Supreme Court could rule any state law void. Yet again, that is a pale comparison against the full power of Judicial Review claimed by Chief Justice Marshall. Here, the Supreme Court can strike down a State’s law only if it directly violates one of the powers of the Federal Constitution or an act by Congress. Yet the Constitution gives the states a remedy for this type of situation, in Article III, Section 2, in which it Grants the Supreme Court Jurisdiction on any cases where a State may be party to. So regardless of how the Supremacy Clause may be read, it must be taken into account along with the protection provided to the States in Article III.
Yes, the Supreme Court should be able to claim that a law is Unconstitutional, in the sense that it violated the personal rights of an individual or a State that is not explicitly removed by the Constitution, or the Law exceeds its power explicably given by the Constitution. It should be able to, as well, when brought up to the Court, strike down laws that are in direct contrast to the Constitution. The Constitution does give the Supreme Court some guides into when it may claim a State or Federal law unconstitutional, but only in the case of “Law and Equity” and only if the claim is based in, some form a Constitutional matter.
Yet the Supreme Court should never be able to dictate to any branch of government, whether its actions are Constitutional or not. The claim that a law is unconstitutional should be let only in the most extreme of circumstances, and only against the legislative branches of the government. Or in the most extreme case, when the executive breaches one of the powers of the constitution and refuses to obey congressional acts, such as explained in the Constitution.
Many claim that the Supreme Court, as part of its role in government, was intrinsically granted the Power of Judicial Review. It is often sited that the in the spirit of Checks and Balances, that the Supreme Court must be able to defend the Constitution for all enemies, in both the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Government. Yet, as shown, there is no explicated instructions given to the Supreme Court for Judicial Review as explained by Chief Justice Marshal.
The Constitution of the United States, as intended by the Founders, did not limit the powers of the individual, it, instead had very specific language limiting the powers of the Federal Government instead. The Tenth Amendment is the most blatant form of the restrictive powers of the Constitution towards the Federal Government. It is this language, in Article III and in the rest of the Constitution, which makes the greatest case against the notion that the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the Power of Judicial Review.
So, what role should the Supreme Court play? When the Constitution was established, a notion of checks and balances where infused into the historical document. Each branch was to monitor and control one branch while it was monitored by the third, in order to establish a system of government that could be controlled by the people at any given time. The Judiciary was the third and weakest of the three branches, and for good reason. The Founders of this great country knew that the people would be swayed by the ebbs and flows of radical ideas and mob rule. If this where to happen during an election year, then the framework for this country could be ruined. That is why only once, every four years, do the three elected houses come up for election together, and the senate, only a third of its members. The framers, in order to establish some constancy, decided to grant judgeships for life. Yet that posed a serious problem, these men, who sat on the highest court on the land, and where a part of the Checks and Balances system, did not directly represent the will of the People.
The Supreme Court has a crucial role to play in American Government. Granted the power of review of the Legislative Acts of Congress, as explained earlier, it was the final protector of the Constitution, in the case that both the Legislative and Executive Branch failed in their duty to protect and enforce the Constitution.
Yet, with its role as a check on the legislative, and Justices being appointed for life, the Supreme Court was deliberately shorted in the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution explicitly gives the court its original and applet jurisdiction, lightly touches on the power of Legislative Review, and explains how it will function. The rest of Article three explains that the Congress will establish the lower courts.
Why is the establishment of lower courts left to Congress? This is part of the Checks and Balances system. Since the Supreme Court can anole an act of Congress if it is a violation of the Constitution, The Supreme Court, along with the rest of the Judiciary, could potentially be the true lawmakers of the United States. The Framers decided to avoid this by letting both Congress and the President get involve in the creation and appointment of the Supreme Court and the lesser courts. This helps restrain the raw power that the Supreme Court could wield against the States, Federal Government and the people.
Supreme Court in my opinion has a very simple, powerful position in the American Constitutional system. It is the Branch of Government that keeps a watchful eye on the Congress, making sure that the laws passed are within the powers granted by the Constitution. It is the final Court in the cases of Treason, impartial and unbiased. It is the final protector of the Constitution, but is not, under any stretch, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Selective Incorporation

Selective Incorporation:
The Continuation of a Negative Rights Constitution

When the fourteenth amendment was past in 1868, it was to protect recently freed slaves. Some interpret its protection from the states stripping them of their rights in the states that is granted in the Federal Constitution. If this where so, then the states would effectively seize to exist there individual laws would then have to comply with the rights granted to them by the federal government. The fourteenth amendment is not the end all be all of the Federal Constitution. Its adoption was not to remove one of the bases of the Federalist system. The states must be able to act on there own. Not purely autonomous, but with the ability to function with the freedom to set there own laws.
The Federal Constitution is a list of things the federal government can do, and that they can only do those things in their jurisdiction, the rest was left to the states. In the Bill of Rights, the Ninth and Tenth Amendment grant the states, and more importantly, the People rights and protections. The fourteenth amendment, though valuable in helping protect the rights of new freed slaves, is not an encasement of the first eight amendments.
The United States Constitution was drafted by people who defined rights as negative rights. Thus, when the Constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment protects the "life, liberty, or property" and "equal protection of the laws" to "any person," it is referring to acts which government must refrain from doing, not to any positive duty of the government to act. The federal government is not required, and is expressively prohibited from, by the Tenth Amendment, from interfering with state laws unless they are in direct conflict with the laws passed by the federal government, in witch case the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Federal Constitution would protect the denizens of any state that would attempt to violate any law.
Even though the Fourteenth Amendment dose state that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This particular statement does not render the states obsolete. This is meant to ensure that any state does not violate the fundamental rights granted by the Federal Constitution, not that they adhere to a document that does not apply to their jurisdiction. It is preferable that the several states have a Bill of Rights similar to the Federal Constitution, or even have share all the amendments that protect the citizens of their particular states, but this is not required.
In the final two amendments of the Bill of Rights, both the people and the several states are protected. The Framer’s of the Federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights understood that as time would continue, holes in the original Federal Constitution would become apparent. Regardless that the Federal Constitution is a negative rights document, the government could distort things to violate rights that are not expressively stated. This is why the placed both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment, which would later be found, in women’s privacy rights cases, to be the source of other none-enumerated rights, explicitly states that the Federal Constitution is not created to grant one right in the expense of another. When you tie that with the Tenth Amendment that grants a power not specifically given to the federal government to the states, a powerful Constitutional logic is crated to protect the several states in their autonomy.
Again, the Fourteenth Amendment does not change the basis of the Federalist system of government. The several states are granted considerable freedoms and protections, as long as they do not violate enumerated rights that are in the Federal Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, although does grant

revitalization

Revitalization. I called this, and I am glad I did. I hope the rest of you are as happy as I am. This Pick of Sarah Palin means one very important thing.

McCain won't just lose, Obama must beat him.

Before, I was hoping that Obama would screw up so bad, that McCain would win by default. Now, McCain can actually win off his own merits. I know that many of you are not McCain supporters, but anti-Obama. I was too, and that was still leaving me a dirty taste in my mouth. This is The United States of America. We don't vote against things, we vote for them.

Now I can.

Sarah is the frontier girl. She is American. Her Husband had a DUI at 22, Good. He is a guy. Her sister is divorced from a scum bag who threatened her father, and her husband notify the scum bag boss. Good, who hasn't gone through one or both of those things. How about her pregnant daughter at 17 to her boyfriend. That's not that big of a problem. She is going to support the new couple.

Sarah could be the worst mistake in political history, but, if not, She can be the final punch line in the joke that would be an Obama defeat.

Go Sarah.

Vice President Paluin

There are six rules in picking a Vice President (according to Prof. Dario Moreno at FIU):

1. Do No Harm
2. Balance the Ticket
3. Bring a State
4. Unify the Party
5. Bring something unique to the ticket
6. An Attack Dog

As a female Gov. from Alaska, Palin is Sen. McCain's best choice for his running mate in the current Political Climate. With a young (Palin is 44 years old) and energetic woman on the ticket, McCain would make a serious play on the disenfranchised Hillary votes that can be grabbed by McCain's moderate stance and Palin's gender.

Yet McCain's moderate views can potentially scare away McCain's already disheartened base, Yet Gov. Palin would balance the ticket being a strong fiscal conservative that has slashed a good amount of earmarks of both republicans and democrats, and has probably the greatest quote of modern time claiming that "The Constitution is my bible in governing." That would be enough to cement his base into a similar block that propelled W. into the White House 8 years ago.

Most importantly, she would be the strongest of the attack dogs on Energy, Corruption, age, and anything else Obama bin Biden(www.Schnittshow.com) wants to throw at them. Pollster Dittman once was quoted "The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who have crossed Sarah."

Yet, McCain has rarely been reasonable when it comes to his base or the Constitution, but hey we can pray and hope, just like our Savior, Lord Barry.

The First Time

I am Jonathan Phillip Martin. I was born in the fleeting years of President Regan, yet I did not care. I saw the first Bush and Clinton get elected,and yet I did not care. I was being a kid, a teenager. My Father, Mother, Step-mother, and the rest of my extended family were raising me to be an American, not a republican or a Democrat. And I never cared about it.

Then September 11, 2001 happened.

I was in my Freshman year in High school. I remember that day better then any other day in my life, and just as well as my youngest brother's birth. That day, when my father picked me up from school, my father had on the Radio, like every other American. From that day, if I have been near a Radio, it has been on, so I could hear as much news as possible.

On the weeks after 9-11, I thought the political world was that way, people working together to hunt the bastards that killed 3000 Americans. Then I saw the world as it really was, Left and Right. So I asked my Father what Party he belonged to. He told me "It doesn't mater what I am, it maters what you believe in." So I did my homework, and found myself to be very, very right.

Yet, although I am a conservative, I am not a republican, at least not part of the party of today. They have moved to the center, I will not. So here, on this humble and quite Blog, I invite all of you that are like me. People whose political place is firm, but there party is not. Like Gov. Pailin said "My Bible in Governing is the Constitution" It is mine as well, and here, I will defend it, and all my thoughts, beliefs and stances.

So i welcome all of you, those who will stand with me or against me, and let us have the debate and let this be the battleground for the Constitution