{"id":18205,"date":"2024-03-29T06:05:10","date_gmt":"2024-03-29T06:05:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/presidents-come-and-go-but-the-supreme-court-goes-on-forever-inside-the-supreme-court-video-analysis\/"},"modified":"2024-03-29T06:05:10","modified_gmt":"2024-03-29T06:05:10","slug":"presidents-come-and-go-but-the-supreme-court-goes-on-forever-inside-the-supreme-court-video-analysis","status":"publish","type":"questions","link":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/questions\/presidents-come-and-go-but-the-supreme-court-goes-on-forever-inside-the-supreme-court-video-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever: Inside the Supreme Court Video Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"

 please follow the instruction carefully.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Prompt
<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Choose 1<\/strong> <\/span>to write your essay over. Papers should be argumentative, in favor or opposition of one position presented in the question. Papers must include at least 1 example from the film and 1 example from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, to offer support for their position.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Describe how power of the Supreme Court has changed, by comparing the power of the first court (Marshall\u2019s court) to the present day court (CSPAN video Roberts Court) to analyze whether the power of this particular court has either remained consistent or overstepped the function and purpose intended by the framers.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. In your own words, explain the meaning, power and purpose behind the term Judicial Review and assess whether this is or is not within the bounds of the Supreme Court’s constitutional power.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. There are two competing ways justices make decisions and interpret the constitution: judicial restraint or judicial activism. Explain the differences between these two approaches of interpreting the constitution and decision making, and based on the personal interviews of each justice, given in the CSPAN video,  provide an example of a justice whose decision-making behavior you would predict to model each of the two types of decision making behaviors.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    History of the Supreme Court’s Organization, Structure, Membership and Decision Making Power<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    It was back on this day in 1789 that Congress passed the act that officially created the federal judiciary system that included the Supreme Court and other federal courts. <\/p>\n

    The Supreme Court itself was established as part of the Constitution. According to Article III, \u201cThe judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.\u201d The details of the Court\u2019s composition and that of the lower courts were left to Congress, which debated the Judiciary Act for several months and passed the final measure on September 24, 1789. The Act set the intial number of Supreme Court<\/span> (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a> justices<\/span> (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a> at six: one Chief Justice<\/span> (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a> and five Associate Justices<\/span> (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

    The early days of the Court were certainly low-key. The justices, when they met, were in the Old City Hall in Philadelphia and then the Capitol building\u2019s basement in Washington.<\/p>\n

    The Supreme Court then became more of an institution we\u2019d recognize today under Chief Justice John Marshall\u2019s tenure as the Supreme Court\u2019s leader for more than three decades.<\/p>\n

    In the court\u2019s history, 106 of the 112 Justices have been white men. Only six are minorities with four women and two African-Americans. One of the women \u2014 Justice Sonia Sotomayor \u2014 is also Latina.<\/p>\n

    Democratic Presidents have nominated three women (Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) and one African-American (Thurgood Marshall).<\/p>\n

    A Republican President (Reagan) nominated the first woman to ever sit on the bench \u2014 Sandra Day O\u2019Connor \u2014 and President George H.W. Bush nominated African-American Clarence Thomas. <\/span>Nine has <\/span>not always been the magic number<\/span> (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a> for Justices. While the Court has settled there since 1869, it reached an all-time high of 10 in 1863 \u2014 not exactly conducive to majority opinions \u2014 while the inaugural Court only hosted four. For the first 146 years of its existence (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a>, the Supreme Court did not have its own building. Justices reportedly met in different rooms of the Capitol building and also frequented private homes and bars to discuss their cases.<\/span><\/p>\n

    On the topic of cases, the court is not particularly productive when it comes to its case-to-opinion ratio. While it does manage to issue rulings on between 80 and 90 per year, it receives anywhere from 7,000-8,000 new cases (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a> each term.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The highest court in the land ultimately decided vegetable. The case was <\/span>Nix vs. Hedden<\/span> (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a>, decided in 1893.<\/p>\n

    John Nix was a big-time produce seller in NYC. The <\/span>Tariff Act of March 3, 1883<\/em> <\/span>determined taxes had to be paid on imported veggies, but not fruits.<\/p>\n

    Tomatoes being seed-bearing, many considered them to be fruits but ultimately Justice Horace Gray would argue, in a unanimous decision, that <\/span>tomatoes weren\u2019t fruits because they were typically eaten with the main course of a meal instead of as a dessert<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    Some of you may think \u2014 horrifying as it may sound \u2014 the government is the only entity able to utilize eminent domain to its advantage. Not true.<\/p>\n

    The Supreme Court decided in the 2005 case of <\/span>Kelo vs. City of New London<\/span> (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a> <\/span>that it was also usable when it came to the transference of property from one private owner to another.<\/p>\n

    Translation<\/em>: you can be forced to sell your land to another at a predetermined price beyond your control even if you don\u2019t want to, provided the sale is for the public good \u2014 except that\u2019s not true if you follow the specific case all the way through to its conclusion.<\/p>\n

    The land owners in question were forced to sell to make way for the promise of economic development from the pharmaceutical company <\/span>Pfizer. Pfizer<\/em> <\/span>never actually delivered on that promise after the sale.<\/p>\n

    Beloved President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed one of the least popular <\/span>Executive Orders<\/span> (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a> <\/span>of all time (historically) interning the Japanese into camps during World War II, <\/span>regardless of citizenship<\/span> (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

    In <\/span>Korematsu vs. U.S.<\/em>, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the order. \u201cPressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can,\u201d wrote Justice Hugo Black.<\/p>\n

    Required Materials and Resources:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Copy and paste the two links below, in order to watch the two videos needed to complete this assignment.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Marbury v. Madison Case :<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. https:\/\/youtu.be\/uLRO5iCWpps?si=sIxnKahcPzaf44Ih
      <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

       <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Frontline Inside the Supreme Court Documentary:<\/span><\/li>\n
      2. https:\/\/www.c-span.org\/video\/?297213-1\/the-supreme-court-home-americas-highest-court-2010-edition<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Analysis Objectives and Central Themes <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

        Keeping in mind that the founding fathers gave little thought to the Federal Court’s power. This is evident in that compared to Article I (Congress\/Legislative Branch) and Article II (President\/Executive Branch), Article III of the constitution is the shortest in length. Recall, the framer’s purpose and function for establishing a federal court system.  They were seeking to create an independent judiciary<\/span><\/p>\n

        Only during the ratification debates in the states did political writers more fully explore the Constitution\u2019s definition of judicial independence. The most famous commentary came in The Federalist essays of Alexander Hamilton, who argued that \u201cthe complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution,\u201d by which he meant a Constitution that placed limits on the authority of all government officeholders. The judiciary\u2019s responsibility, according to Hamilton, was to enforce the people\u2019s will as expressed in the Constitution and thus to prevent the abuse of power by the executive and especially the legislature. \u201cPermanent tenure\u201d was the most important foundation of the courts\u2019 role as \u201cbulwarks . . . against legislative encroachments.\u201d<\/span>
        <\/span>
        <\/span>A prominent Anti-Federalist critic of the Constitution acknowledged the importance of judicial independence as secured by service during good behavior, but \u201cBrutus\u201d also recognized that the judicial independence envisioned by the Constitution was unprecedented. Judges would be removable only by impeachment and conviction of \u201chigh crimes and misdemeanors\u201d rather than by a vote of the legislature, as was the case in most other governments with judicial tenure during good behavior. \u201cBrutus\u201d warned that regardless of errors of judgment or inability to carry out their duties, federal judges would be \u201cindependent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven.\u201d He also worried that these largely unaccountable judges would have the final say on the meaning of the Constitution, but Hamilton and other framers of the proposed government thought that the courts\u2019 responsibility to determine the constitutionality of laws, and thus to protect individual rights, was precisely the reason for the extraordinary protections of judicial independence. Hamilton dismissed concerns about unchecked judicial power, since the courts had \u201cno influence over either the sword or the purse.\u201d (<\/span>        http:\/\/www.fjc.gov\/history\/home.nsf\/page\/talking_ji_tp.html<\/span> (Links to an external site.)<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

        Useful Links and Resources:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n