Supreme Court Cases: US V. Curtiss

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

The government of the United States of America has been around for over 2 centuries, in this time the original setup has been little altered. The government is composed of three individual branches: judicial, executive, and legislative branches. All three branches are held together using a system of checks and balances. While each branch has some kind of trump or has control over another branch, some branches are arguably more powerful than others. The main focus of this paper will be on where the executive branch stands power-wise. When our founding fathers first started building our nation from the dust, they had in mind a system of branches where no one branch was more powerful than the others. The decision of whether or not they hit

“When war is thrust upon the nation, the President had not only the authority but the responsibility to ‘resist force by force.’” –U.S. Supreme Court ruling of the Prize Cases, 1862 (67 U.S. 6335).

In the article, “Unilateral Action and Presidential Power: A Theory,” Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, two political science instructors from Stanford University, investigate a source of presidential power, which is the president’s capability to act individually and make his own law, that has been unacknowledged yet essential to presidential leadership that it defines how the modern presidency is distinctively modern. The authors’ purpose in the article is to outline a theory of this feature of presidential power by arguing that the president’s powers of unilateral action, which is developed from the ambiguity of the contract, are strengths in American politics since they are not mentioned in the constitution. They also claim that presidents push the ambiguity of the contract to make their powers grow and that Congress and the courts would not be able to stop them (Moe and Howell, 1999, p. 1-3).

The Federalists Papers were written in the eighteenth century by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in an effort to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. These papers are said to be the key that unlocks the true interpretation and meaning of the Unites Sates Constitution. One of the controversial topics relating to the Constitution that the Federalists Papers help to straighten out, is the practice of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this essay, I will point out many of the examples Alexander Hamilton gives in Federalist No. 78 that support the idea of the Supreme Court having power of judicial review over all levels of

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

As the decided cases make clear, focusing mainly on mere historical acquiescence by Congress when examining the President 's exercise of a particular power does not by itself prove that Congress lacks the authority to limit the exercise of that power when it gathers the courage and wisdom to do so. Justice Jackson 's Steel Seizure concurrence carried the warning that "only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers” and that warning presupposes what is argued here: that Congress, if it so chooses, can regain power lost to the executive branch through its own course of action. If the Congress does not act when conditions demand action, then the President will exercise power because power must be exercised. But the fact that the President exercises a power when Congress does not, does not render that power as "inherent" in the executive or even make it remotely valid. At best, the power is "inherent" in the overall government of the United States of America. Therefore, the argument that Presidents have "always" controlled troops without congressional interference proves no more than perhaps its own premise: that Presidents have always done this. In particular, that historical conclusion makes no statement at all about congressional authority to alter that long-standing state of affairs. Failure to see this crucial distinction accounts for occasional citation to the line of cases beginning with United States v. Midwest Oil Co., as authority for the

dealings with members of the Seattle police to secure the release of any of the

In holding that the president’s action was constitutional, the Court implicitly gave its approval that the president’s action could satisfy the compelling government interest burden. Justice William Rehnquist, who was not yet on the Court, would later weigh in on this case when he wrote, “An entirely separate and important philosophical question is whether occasional presidential excesses and judicial restraint in wartime are desirable or undesirable. In one sense, this question is very largely academic. There is no reason to think that future wartime presidents will act differently from Lincoln, Wilson, or Roosevelt, or that future Justices of the Supreme Court will decide questions differently than their predecessors” (Rehnquist). His point makes clear the practical implications of this case, which may be used to justify the view that the court has provided the president with a “constitutional dictatorship,” especially in times of war. The Court found a way to provide the president with almost absolute power, and that set a dangerous precedent for the future, just as Rehnquist points out.

The United States emerged from its war for independence economically and politically ravaged. Times were tough for many citizens, and it was up to the authors of the Constitution to establish a foundation upon which the nation could properly prosper. The tough times called for extensive measures, and few measures were as extensive as giving the president the power to do anything the president desired. This power enabled the president to do any acts the president deemed necessary for stability. However, the possible consequences were recognized by officials and the people. As such, limitations were introduced that greatly restricted the power of executive

All through the American history, the President's capacities have extended enormously from a constrained part doled out by the Founding Fathers to the official force and a more extensive impact over numerous territories. Being suspicious of giving the President an official force which may prompt an American dictator, the Founding Fathers permitted not very many particular president powers, in contrast with the real part of Congress, which was relied upon to be the predominant branch of the national government.

The other three Supreme Court decisions were In re Winship (1970), in which the Court found that when establishing guilt of criminal charges the strict "reasonable-doubt" standard must be applied to both adults and juveniles alike; McKiever v. Pennsylvania (1971), in which the Court ruled that because juvenile cases are not considered either civil or criminal, the whole of the Sixth Amendment does not necessarily apply, and, therefore, there is no requirement for a jury trial in juvenile cases; and Breed v. Jones (1975), in which the Supreme Court held that trying a juvenile in an adult court after an adjudication in juvenile court constituted double

Throughout the history of this nation, the Constitution, from the formation to the execution thereof, has set forth the precedent for the demonstration of excessive federal power that is clearly illustrated by history and modern America. Sufficient documentation to back up this premise includes primary documents such as James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, the Constitution of the United States, and other historical pieces. Ample consideration should be given to the paramount decisions of America’s elected officials in critical moments as well in the very construction of the American system of government that favors federalism.

Presidential power has increased immensely over recent years and little is being done in an attempt to restore the original intent of the Constitution. There are multiple factors that affect this, including the executive orders of presidents, the Constitution giving an unequal distribution of power between the executive and legislative branch, the failure to use checks and balances, and the ineffectiveness of Congress. With the lack of congressional involvement in legislative decisions, the president has the ability to take matters in their own hands.