American Law: Article III of the US Constitution - Assignment Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : American Law Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 American Law 1. According to Article III of the US Constitution, which was ratified 222 years ago, federal judges can only be removed from office by the impeachment procedure. Is this provision out of date? Discuss. No, this provision is not out of date even to present. In normal situation, a Supreme Court justice is granted a lifetime hire. But a supreme court justice can end up getting impeached through the house of representatives and dismissed from office incase he or she is convicted using a senate trial, but only for similar kinds of wrongdoings that would prompt any impeachment taking place for any other legislative administrator under Article I and II of the Constitution. There is a section in section 1 which states that all judges of courts will stay in their offices “during good behavior”. The meaning of “good behavior” is interpreted by the courts to mean that equivalent height of weightiness the “high crimes and misdemeanors” takes in (Founding Fathers & Applewood Books). Moreover, according to the constitution, any federal judge can get prosecuted of any crime he or she commits in the criminal courts. Incase the judge is found guilty of the crime accused of within a federal district court, the jury is bound to face the identical kind of sentencing any other person who is a criminal defendant would face. Nevertheless, the district court cannot eliminate him or her from the bench. But still, any judge who is found guilty within the criminal courts of having committed any felony would most definitely get impeached and incase the said judge is found guilty; he or she will end up getting removed from the office. Within U.S, impeachment is in most cases utilized to dismiss corrupt lower court judges from holding their offices (California Legislature &Assembly 2009). The impeachment process involves two steps whereby the impeachment phase which is the same as Grand Jury hearing the charges that are known as “articles of impeachment” are offered and consequently the House of Representatives makes a decision if the evidence availed is enough to warrant the accused judge a trial. The House votes and incase the House votes succeeds trough a plain majority, the accused judge who is the defendant gets “impeached” and then he or she goes ahead to a trial in the Senate. During the senate trial, even if it is analogous to criminal trial, it only aims at establishing if the accused judge ought to be removed from the office the basis being the evidence that has been presented against him at impeachment. Throughout the trial, a committee which comes from House of Representatives known as managers prosecutes the jury and on the other hand Impeachment Trial Committee of senators are there as the presiding juries. This method started being practiced within the 1980s when Senate Rule XII was passed. During the end of the trial, the entire Senate vote should return a two thirds Super Majority if there is any conviction to be ruled against the defendant. Incase the impeached judge is found guilt and the Senate vote warrants his or her removal, he or she is removed from the office instantly and barred from holding such an office in future. Therefore, in accordance to article III, section 1, the judicial powers of the United States are vested in a single Supreme Court and in such lower Courts as the Congress might from time to time lay down and set up. The judges are only supposed to hold their offices during good behavior and are normally removed from their offices through impeachment up to now. The impeachment is carried out by the House of Representatives for crimes that are weighty as well as misdemeanors and this is dome through the majority vote. The conviction is done within the senate which requires about a two thirds vote. Therefore, a judge can only be removed from the office through the impeachment process even up to date. Below cases illustrates some of the Judges who underwent the impeachment process where some were found guilty and removed and some were found not guilty and remained in their offices. John Pickering, Judge, 1804, mental instability and intoxication on the bench, who was found guilty Samuel Chase, Justice, 1805, arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials, who was found not guilty James H. Peck, Judge, 1831, abuse of the contempt power, who was found not guilty West H. Humphreys, Judge, 1862, refusing to hold court and waging war against the US government, who was found guilty Charles Swayne, Judge, 1905, abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office, who was found not guilty Robert Archbald, Judge, 1913, improper business relationship with litigants, who was found guilty Harold Louderback, Judge,1933, favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers, who was found not guilty Halsted Ritter, Judge, 1936, favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers and practicing law while sitting as a judge, who was found guilty Harry E. Claiborne, Judge, 1986, income tax evasion, remaining on the bench following conviction, who was found guilty Alcee Hastings, Judge, 1989, perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe, who was found guilty Walter Nixon, Judge, 1989, perjury before a federal grand jury, who was also found guilty. The removal of all these judges who were found guilty was through impeachment through the House of Representatives by the majority vote and then the conviction followed by the senate which has to tally up to two thirds vote. So far, only 7 judges have been removed through impeachment throughout the history of United States. For instance, in 1949, Judge Samuel Kent admitted that he had been untruthful to the investigators and that he had had sexual contacts with two female employees within the court without the consent of the ladies and in 11 May 2009 Judge Samuel Kent was sentenced to prison for up to 30 months. In 19th June 2009, Judge Samuel Kent was impeached and found guilty and hence was removed from the office. Judge Samuel Kent resigned effectual 30 June 2009. 2. Most US law schools only admit students who have already completed a bachelor's degree of four years' duration. Do you agree with this requirement? Why or why not? No, I do not agree with this requirement. This is because a law degree is just like any other degree and the students who want to study law should not be forced to first do other degrees that are not of their choice in order to study law in future. The best way would be for the schools to make it a requirement for any student willing to pursue law to have passed in the subjects that are required for a person to study law (Lowell 2004). There are many factors that the law schools would major in while admitting their students apart from having a bachelor’s degree. For instance, it should be made compulsory for the students to get excellent scores on the Law School Admission Test as a precondition for admission. Such tests are sufficient to assess the students if they are fit to study law among many other evaluations methods like assessment of the students by using the essays, short questions whereby the students would be required to give answers, clear scrutiny of application materials and also the students can be requested to bring honorable recommendation letters for them to get admitted if they pass all other tests. Still, the law schools can concentrate on matters like personal factors before admitting the students since these factors are very important. The law schools ought to actively look for the applicants who come from outside the traditional pool as this will help in the boosting racial, economic and practical diversity within the law school. The personal factors are very important since the law school students are in future going to become the lawyers, judges, attorneys and legal professionals who will be serving others and thus they should have strong personalities as they will be involved in promoting justice. The law schools should aim at targeting the students who would be devoted both to the aims of serving others honestly, proficiently, and dutifully, and to the objectives of improving justice and the value of justice within the legal system. Therefore, the law schools should set out to admit the students with some notable experience since this may illustrate such people are likely to dedicate considerable effort to assisting others. Moreover, the law schools should also concentrate more on students who display a lot of diversity in constitutional matters since this shows that such students are entirely interested in the law issues. Considering that the law schools are very expensive, it is doing the students who would be willing to join the field an injustice since after paying for the under graduate degree most of them would not be willing to pay more money in another degree. Since the students most likely had Per haps instead of the students first studying any degree the law schools could make the students to first learn the general law and then make them specify in the law lines they would wish to pursue. There are several areas the law students could be covering before specifications, which could take place during their second year in the law school. The areas that the students can first generalize in include moot court, legal writing classes, legal clinics, law review and summer clerkships and many more others. Furthermore, if these schools admitted students without their first degree, there still many areas whereby the students get tested before they are granted permission to practice. This includes the bar examination. The following instead could be made a mandatory pass for any student willing to pursue law in these schools admissions criteria LSAT – law school aptitude test GPA – grade point average reputation in the profession Moreover, the law schools could also consider making their students to study for more semesters instead of them first doing the first degree. This would be of great assistance because if the students spend most of their studies in law schools are better since they end up becoming more refined instead of first doing a bachelor’s degree and then spending a short time in the law schools. Lastly, it is unfair making it a requirement for the students to first study a bachelor degree to the young people who want to study law since some of them study the fields they have no passion in and as a result end up failing and hence they get to have their dreams of studying law dwindled just because they did not immediately go to law schools where they have their field of interests (Lowell 2004). 3. Should there be a national bar association in the United States, rather than the system of state bar associations, so that lawyers might practice nationally? Discuss.   Yes, there should be a national bar association within U.S. Basically, a bar association is a certified body of lawyers. In U.S, admission to the bar is the permission given by a specific court to a lawyer so that the given lawyer can be able to practice law using that system. Well, in America, the practicing lawyers are normally in the state bar association and as a result a lawyer practices within the state he or she is a member. Normally, there is a lawyer’s association within each state and the District of Columbia and each and every sate is supervised by highest court. Since a practicing lawyer must be a member of the bar association, all layers are required to have state-bar membership and thus a lawyer applies to a specific jurisdiction and upon the application going through the lawyer gets membership to the specific state association. The lawyers who can enter in the state membership include lawyers in private organization and the voluntary lawyers as well. The sate association does not have the authority to confer the right to practice or right of 'audience' and there is no disciplinary authority within the association. However, it accredits law schools within the given state. The key limitation with this association is that it does give the lawyers a chance to practice nationally while if there was national bar association in the United States the lawyers would be in a position to practice nationally. In case there is national bar association, the American lawyers would get very many opportunities to take part in active discourse regarding the profession, to end up creating nationwide networks and also to exchange valuable information from lawyers coming from different nations and hence adding up more skill in their law profession. The members that would come with national bar association would be countless. The American lawyers would get a chance to meet with the best all America’s lawyers and consequently this is likely to make the American lawyers better partners in their firms and better lawyers as well. Here are some of the more benefits that would come up with the American lawyers getting into national bar association. There would be widespread chances for the lawyers and this is because the national bar association has forms a network of very many lawyers, legal professionals, juries, faculty and administrators and the students learning law and this as a result offers an avenue for sharing and broadcasting ideals and hence cultivation solid in addition to strong professional ties. Moreover, this would give the lawyers who are in state bar associations to get in the National Directory of African-American Attorneys. This is because the lawyers who are in national bar association get registered inside the certified National Bar Association Membership Directory automatically. This would give the American lawyers a chance to get an all set reference for locating lawyers and more so the black lawyer specialists nationwide. The lawyers would also get a chance to get continuing legal education and enlightenment as well. This is because National Bar association is a certified sponsor in each and every American sate with compulsory long term legal education requirements. The National Bar Association offers more than 45 continuing legal education coursed each year. The American lawyers would also benefit from the annual convention that National Bar association holds with all its members. Apparently, this convention is one of the largest meeting of the African- American lawyers, legal professionals, Judges and law students all over the world and hence this give them a chance to share ideas and benefit with skills they initially did not have. Finally, the lawyers will get a chance to access the National Bar Association magazine which always keeps the members with new information regarding new developments within the areas that are related with law and also the magazine is a source of internal communications among the members and the lawyers gets an opportunity to get insurance this is because National Bar Association members are all entitled to the NBA Lawyers Professional Liability Insurance and Risk Management Program "with certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London." This would be very important to the layers especially in protecting them from incurring incredible losses and hence minimizing the lawyers’ career risks. National Bar Association would also represent all Americans within the legal profession and this consists of the juries, lawyers, attorneys, legal assistant and also the students learning law within the United States and its territories as well. Moreover, all the states would be equally represented and the lawyers would get a chance to practice their law professionalism in different states and thus diversifying their law practice (California Legislature & Assembly 2009). 4. Should morbidly obese people be recognized as a "quasi-suspect class" (deserving intermediate scrutiny) for purposes of equal protection analysis? Why or why not?   According to the U.S constitutional law, intermediate scrutiny refers to the medium level of scrutiny which the courts apply in order to determine constitutional matters by using judicial review. For an intermediate scrutiny test to go through, it must be demonstrated that the law or the policy that is being challenged adds a significant government interest in a manner that considerably connected to that interest (Gerstmann 2005).  Therefore, the idea of equal protection within the state and federal constitution entails the homogeneous treatment of individuals as per the governmental action. In general, the government, and in this case state or federal has the liberty of enacting laws that are found to be limiting some particular group of people from carrying out some tasks or participating in some things, for instance controlling the buying and the selling of alcohol or cigarettes. In order to decide if a limitation is constitutional, courts normally come up with an analysis that is founded on classifications of particular groups of people. The classes include, suspect class, quasi-suspect in addition to non suspect class. The individuals who are found to be in suspect or quasi suspect class are at liberty to get more constitutional protection and hence the state ought to have a more compelling purpose for the limitation, and the courts will evaluate the laws under higher scrutiny. Even if the federal constitution does not in any way specifically specify any group that is supposed to be in the suspect classes, The United States Supreme Court has outlined three such classifications which include the race, alienage and the origin of an individual nationally. Moreover, for the reasons of having equal federal protection scrutiny, The United State Court has also created an intermediate level of scrutiny for the quasi suspect groupings, for instance the gender. Morbidly obese people should also be included in the quasi suspect class since they often face discrimination within the society and even at many places. They are even discriminated during employment over their thinner counterparts. Expanding the protected classes to include the morbidly obese people can be a potentially successful approach of making sure that prejudicial beliefs against the people that are stigmatized are not turned out to discourteous or discriminatory treatment. Morbidly obese people should be within the quasi suspect class. According to the law, everyone has the right of being treated equally irrespective of any disability or the way some one looks. Both morbidly obese people and those who are not wish to be treated fairly without any discrimination and have the same rights and privileges and be offered the same obligation as well as the same responsibilities. The court should hold that under these situations, equal protection needs the court to establish if differences between the morbidly obese people and those who are not justify unequal treatment according to the law. The case of morbidly obese people can be illustrated with the case of same sex marriage whereby the courts have ruled the gays and lesbians as belonging to the quasi suspect class since they face constant discrimination within the society and belong to a minority group since many people opt for opposite sex marriage and view the gays as lacking and hence discriminate them. An example is the Baehr v. Lewin in Hawaii in 1993, where a court: ruled that the state must prove that excluding same-sex couples from marriage was justified under state constitutional law after the trial, the trial judge rejected the state's arguments voters amended Hawaii's constitution to give legislature power to decide legislature passed "reciprocal beneficiaries" law Hawaii Supreme Court reversed on basis of state constitutional amendment Likewise, morbidly obese people face similar discriminations and are in minority and hence should be recognized as a "quasi-suspect class". In determining if the morbidly obese people can be classified as quasi suspect class and thus require stricter protection, it is worth noting that morbidly obese people have been subjected to and stigmatized by a long history of persistent and impossible discrimination. The feature that describes the members belonging to this group- morbidly obese- has no rational relationship to their capacity to perform within society, either in family relations or else as productive citizens. Since body orientation is such a fundamental constituent of personhood, even if there is some possibility that an individual’s body preference can be changed, it would be totally objectionable for the state to call for anyone to do so. Morbidly obese people also stand for a distinct minority group of the state’s population. It is therefore in order to make a conclusion that, as a minority group that go on experiencing the continuing effects of centuries of legally sanctioned discrimination, laws singling them out for unequal treatment should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny to make sure that those laws are not the product of such historical discrimination and stereotyping. The prejudice and hatred that morbidly obese people have faced are similar to, and, in some instances, maybe even more stern than, those faced by some other classes that have been accorded increased judicial protection (Gerstmann 2005).  Morbidly obese people fulfill the criteria that a class requires in order to be incorporated into quasi suspect class. These points include;             prejudice against discrete and insular minorities which tends to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities” U.S. v. Carolene Products Co. (1938) “anti-subjugation principle” aka “group-disadvantaging principle” evolutionary analysis: admiration and pity (compassion) The group belongs to the minority and is constantly discriminated against their thinner counterparts more so in work places and the society at times views then as un equal members of society and are prejudiced when it comes to taking some responsibilities within a society as they are viewed as docile, lazy and hence likely to be unproductive (Gerstmann 2005).  5. Which method of statutory construction, if any, makes the most sense in today's world? Should Congress and the legislatures of the states pass a law mandating that the courts apply one particular method of statutory construction? Why or why not? The literal rule is the method of statuary construction that is widely used in today’s world. The method dictates that the statutes should be interpreted by use of normal meaning of the language of the statute except if statute clearly describes some of its vocabulary otherwise. In a nutshell, law should be read word for word and is not supposed to avert from its true meaning. To avoid doubt, legislatures often take in "definitions" sections in a statute, which clearly define the most vital terms used within that statute. However some statutes leave out a definitions section completely or fail to define a certain term. The plain meaning rule tries to direct courts experiencing litigation that turns on the meaning of a term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found in a definition itself (Sutherland 2008). In this method, it is plain the statue meaning should be sought within the language whereby the act is framed. The single role of the court is to implement ir in accordance to its terms. And incase the language of the statute is clear and plain, the Court does not have the right to interpret and the rules that assist in the meanings should not be discussed at all. From the plain meaning rule, missing a converse definition in the statute, words ought to be given their plain, normal and literal meaning. If the words are understandable, they should be applied, even if the intent of the legislator could have been different or the result is objectionable. The literal rule is what the law says instead of the meaning of the law. An elementary rule of statutory construction entails that each part of a statute be supposed to have some effect, and therefore should not be treated as meaningless except if it is utterly crucial. In evaluating statutory language, except if words have gained an uncharacteristic meaning, by high merit of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be interpreted according to their common usage. The court does not ask what the legislation might be intended to say, just what it actually says. The main question is; what is the literal and ordinary meaning of the words used? The main reason as to why this method is widely used and most preferred is that it stops the courts from siding with any legislative or in any political matters and also because most of the common people and lawyers lack widespread access to secondary sources. In probate law the rule is as well favored since the testator is usually not present to point out what interpretation of a will is suitable. As a result, it is argued, extrinsic evidence is not supposed to be allowed to contrast either the testator’s words or their meaning. It can assist in offering reliability in interpretation. This method may also be preferred principally because judges might not legislate because there is constantly the danger that a certain interpretation can be the equal of making law, many judges favor adhering to the law's literal wording (Sutherland 2008). Yes, I think Congress and the legislatures of the states should pass a law mandating that the courts apply one particular method of statutory construction. This is because Judges, then, have an exceptional responsibility of maintaining the integrity of the constitutional procedure, ensuring that the rules are homogeneously followed, and to hold every public official, as well as themselves, to equal standards. This means that the judges are in particular concerned regarding the procedure (Sutherland 2008). Therefore, if the courts make use and follow one particular method of statutory construction in all their case, irrespective of whether it is in the conduct of a trial or how the statue is being interpreted or terms of the Constitution, a judge can lawfully claim that his or her individual preferences did nit have an even when a dispute occurs. Moreover, the courts will make use of one uniform method during the trials irrespective of who they are trying and hence biasness or cases of the judges choosing a particular method to try a person in order to favor such an individual are not likely to occur since the same interpretation occurs to each and everyone. Certainty within the law—a crucial aspect of rule of law—is destabilized when courts constantly change the methods, overturn established standards, and randomly invalidate themselves. Such precise adherence to method also means that the actual result of a case may not be what the judge in secret favored. Generally, justice will typically prevail if the appropriate method is uniformly observed. Premeditated attempts by the courts to reach out for “justice” in every case, irrespective of recognized norms and method have conventionally been perceived as misuse of office and the justice power. Such unpredictability puts the law in a condition of disorder and ambiguity, invites political interfering in the judicial practice, and jeopardizes the sovereignty of the judiciary by allowing legislative retaliation. Using the same method of statutory construction by all courts will do away with the possibility of these negativities from taking place (Sutherland 2008). Bibliography California Legislature, Assembly, 2009, Constitution of the United States ; Constitution of the State of California as last amended Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation : constitutional history of California, Act for the Admission of California into the Union, the University of California, California. Founding Fathers & Applewood Books, 1998, The Constitution of the United States of America, Applewood Books, New York. Gerstmann, E., 2000, The constitutional underclass: gays, lesbians, and the failure of class-based equal protection, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lowell, M., 2004, The law schools of the United States: a statistical and analytical report based on 136 completed questionnaires and on inspections of 160 law schools, Lord Baltimore Press, New York. Samuel, F., 2001, Good behavior: the Supreme Court and Article III of the United States Constitution, Sunstone Press, New Jersey. Sutherland, G., 2008, Statutes and Statutory Construction, Volume 2, BiblioBazaar, LLC, New York. Read More