Conviction and Impeachment in the Chambers of the US - Coursework Example

Name: Course: Institution: Date: Introduction The American constitution permits the federal judges’ impeachment but no where is indicated that they can only be sacked through impeachment. The relevant provisions of the constitution neither give any related reading. The definition of tenures for the legislative executive along with judicial officials and together with conditions under which the tenures are terminated is given in articles I, II and III respectively. Article I states that termination of Senator’s tenure occurs as a result of expiration after a service of six years through resignation. According to article III, a judge is required to show good behavior and this gives an implication that misbehavior leads to termination of a judge in office stay. Besides other tenure- terminating possibilities, section 4 of article II gives impeachment as a form of alternative mode of removal. Impeachment According to the article, all civil officers in the United States including the President and Vice President are bound to termination of office work on impeachment upon conviction of bribery, treason or any other misdemeanors or high crime. This additional mode of removal neither displaces nor negates other provisions of tenure- termination. It is known to all that just because of the fact that the Secretary of State can be subjected to impeachment, it is not guaranteed that it is only through impeachment that such a person is removed. This is according to the executive officials. This case applies even to the judges since in the US they are part of the general class of civil officers In article III the provision of good behavior does not suggest cross- references of impeachment provision of article II. On the contrary the requirement of good behavior is not a manifestly identical to impeachment’s standard which includes bribery, treason or any form of misdemeanors or high crime. The separate standards confirm the suggestion of the separated impeachment reading and provisions of good behavior, that is, the provisions refer to tenure- terminating contingencies that are independent. Those who hold the idea that it is through impeachment only that can lead to judges’ removal might presume that “good behavior” was an art term with the meaning “tenure for life defensible only by impeachment.” According to history, good behavior was considered to be independent of impeachment (William 134). Independent Concepts: Impeachment and Good Behavior Tenure The term good behavior was a legal term in English law that described tenure in items such as offices, licenses, property and employments. The term described that one would posses an item until the owner was proven guilty of misbehaving through a judicial proceeding. An award in good behavior was distinguishable from appointment in pleasure. This means that if one was given tenure during pleasure such a person could be removed on the basis of the grantor’s will. However if one was given tenure during good behavior such a person could only be removed upon judicial proceeding’s conviction of misbehavior. During the 17th and 18th centuries, this understanding was confirmed over again. Contrary to a person’s assumption, good behavior tenure seemed a thing not peculiar to either public officials or judges. Good behavior tenure was granted by the private parties. This is the same understanding that existent in the English colonies. During the Revolutionary War eve, for instance there was a vigorous public debate concerning the judges’ tenure between John Adams and William Brattle. Despite the differences in the two men, both of them agreed that a judge appointed in good behaviors could only be removed after a trial or hearing where he or she is given a chance to defend himself in presence of a fuller board, being aware of the accusation or accuser (Farnsworth 23). In contrast it was through impeachment procedure that one would receive a criminal prosecution in a legislature. Prosecutions linked to impeachment were not necessarily restricted to government officials. In addition, following a successful prosecution one was not to be removed from office as a punishment relatively such a person could suffer various sanctions such as execution. Impeachment was not regarded as a practice for determining misbehavior during both the 17th and the late18th centuries. For instance, in England the writ of scire facias was taken to be the best procedure for arbitrate judicial misbehavior. In the same way, if private parties possessing good behavior were charged with misbehavior, the accusations were dealt within ordinary courts rather than before parliament. Some Americans across the sea started to consider impeachment as a probable procedure for confirming a misbehavior conduct in the late 18th century. Nevertheless, the Americans never conflated impeachment with elimination for breach for a condition of good behavior. The scope of the impeachment was limited in the constitution but gave no clue that the Founders mission was to modify the implication of good behavior tenure. The federal laws bookended the constitution adoption since it reflected the original understanding. On the basis that Continental Congress was a legislature which lacked impeachment power the act never reflected that determination of misbehavior could be done through impeachment. The judge could be removed from office through conviction. Judicial investigations (William 135) Those with the knowledge of judicial independence may find it difficult to comprehend matters of good behavior tenure grant of Article III. Investigation of allegation concerning judicial misconduct by government officials hence creating reports to both the executive and Congress branch is not something to be suspect constitutionally. According to the constitution judges are investigated and sanctioned by political branches. Based on misdemeanors and high crimes a judge may be convicted, removed and impeached by the chambers of the Congress. Any judge may be prosecuted by the executive if found to have violated the law. Information collected by the Inspector General could be issued in court to give prove of the misbehavior of a judge which led to violation of the tenure terms. Much emphasis is put on the judges’ independence rather than on the provisions on the constitution that encourage judicial accountability which entails the life tenure grant which subjects misbehavior termination. It is clear in the constitution that federal judges lack boundless independence (William 210). Admission to Law schools in U.S Admission to law schools in U.S requires a bachelor’s degree among other requirements (Lammert-Reeves 24). This system or criteria for admission is unfair since a person could be having the ability to study law but fail to possess the degree. Instead, the Law School Admission Test should be used as the criteria for admission. The Law School Admission Test (LSAT) The Law School Admission Test (LSAT) began in 1948 and started to get popularity in the late 1960s. By 1980 when the candidates to law schools started to increase, it was made a standard requirement for the law school admission procedure. The test is conducted by Law School Admission Council (LSAC) which is a non-profit organization with close to 200 member law schools in both U.S and Canada. All the member institutions have made the test a prerequisite to admission. The Law School Admission Test (LSAT) entails a six-part test consisting of both writing sample questions and multiple choice sections (Lammert-Reeves 64). The writing sample is usually sent to every institution to which the candidate applies while the particular questions scored in the multiple-choice questions are not revealed to the applicant but are used to test possible future questions. The multiple choice questions are arranged into various varieties of questions which include comprehension, critical reasoning, and analysis. The questions are designed to test skills that are relevant and significant in law like the ability to decode a complex text and draw a conclusion. Law schools apply the student’s LSAT scores, together with other criteria, to select their candidates. Some institutions require at least a LSAT score for approval. Others use a method in which the LSAT score is multiplied and then summed with the bachelor’s degree grade point average for a total score that assists them in selecting the candidates to admit (Lammert-Reeves 89). Although most of them use the test as the basis for their admission, some have other strict rules which must be adhered to for admission to take place. The minimum of a bachelor’s degree should not be applied as the admission criteria because just like other tests, the LSAT is standardized and is generally fair and objective and has the ability to identify particular students who can study law. The test is reliable for predicting the success of many students in law schools. This may however not apply to all the students. Law School Admission Test (LSAT) evaluation   The LSAT is designed to offer a standard measure of interpretation and verbal analysis skills that are necessary to achieve in law school. The test itself is a lengthy of sorts needing a 175 minutes for the multiple choice questions and a 30 minute writing sample. The test entails a five 35-minute part of multiple-choice questions. Only four of the five parts are applied in calculation of the score. These sections encompass one reading comprehension part, one analytical interpretation part, and two logical interpretation parts. A fifth part is applied in pretesting new test items, and is not applied in calculation of the total score. The section is however not revealed to the candidates in order to make it relevant. Finally, a 30-minute writing sample is administered at the end of the test (Farnsworth 50). Specifically, the LSAT includes: 2 logical reasoning consisting of 24-26 items in which the candidate is required to analyze texts for errors in logic.  1 analytical interpretation part consisting of 24 items in which the candidate is expected to deduce solutions to complex deductive interpretation puzzles 1 reading comprehension part consisting of between 24-26 items in which the candidate is required to read passages and answer some questions. 1 experimental part and can be any of the previously described parts. 1 writing sample where the candidate is expected to write an essay in 30 minutes. This is usually not marked but is instead sent to the institution in order to show the level of the candidates writing and creative skills. The LSAT is marked based on a scale of 120 to 180. The average score for the test is usually 150 though many institutions of law prefer to admit candidates with scores of over 160.Since the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is comprehensive, reliable and objective in assessing the candidates to study law, the other requirements including the possession of a Bachelor’s degree should not be used as the admission criteria to law schools. Many applicants to law institutions fear taking Law School Admission Test (LSAT) though it is the best evaluation test for admission into the institutions. The test is however criticized by some groups of people on the basis that it is biased against the minorities and the women. The critics claim that the information used in the test questions caters for the white male setting and viewpoint. Though previous scores have indicated that the ladies score lower than the men in the test, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) remains to be the primary requirement to entry in both the law institutions and the legal profession in U.S. This should be the basis for admission into law schools and not the bachelor’s degree requirement. System of state bar associations There should be a national bar association in the United States, rather than the system of state bar associations, so that lawyers might practice nationally. Several findings including one done by the American Bar Association reveal that a national bar association is necessary to allow lawyers to practice nationally. The system of state bar association has been blamed for various failures in the U.S judicial system and also limits the range in which lawyers can practice. It also creates non-uniformity in America. A good example of the failure of the system of state bar association is the state death penalty systems which has deeply flawed in many states. The American Bar association has conducted a national wide survey on the death penalty system in various sample states and the results indicate a failure in the system. Based on a comprehensive analysis of execution system in eight sample states, the ABA Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project recorded the problems associated with the sentence. Some of the problems include main racial disparities, insufficient poor defense services and irregular clemency review practices (Lawrence 152). After a thorough study of the manner in which states conduct their spectrum executions, it became evident that the process is extensively flawed. The system in many states is marred by irregularities, supporting the requirement for a moratorium until the various states are able to exercise fairness and accuracy. Thus a national bar association should be established in the country to ensure uniformity and enable lawyers practice nationally. Though the ABA does not take side on the issue of death sentence, since 1997 it has claims that a moratorium in every jurisdiction which provides for execution as a punishment until the state carries out a thorough and exhaustive study to assess whether its system meets legal standards for due process (William 54). Problems identified Each state analyzed seemed to have significant racial differences in imposing the death sentence, especially linked with the race of the suspect and very little had been done to correct the situation. Uniform national bar association in the country will definitely correct the problem. Judicial elections imply that electoral pressures may have some impact on the judicial decisions and many candidates for judges in various states discuss their opinions on the issue during campaigns. Another issue is that states do not have strategies in place to ascertain that lawyers representing individuals with mental problems like mental retardation or illness fully recognize the implication of their client’s mental situation in the case. Some of the states do not formally commute executions when a victim is found incompetent and do not call for instruction of jurors on the difference between insanity as a defense and dependence on a mental condition to mitigate sentencing. In clemency proceedings, many states fail to specify the kind and extent of review or to require the clemency decision maker to elucidate reasons behind their decisions. Another issue that the study revealed is that states do not oblige the law enforcement agencies to adopt practices comporting with nationally accepted practices, especially on the issue of identification and interrogation while others do not require the agencies to record custodial interrogations in murder cases on videotapes or audio tapes. Specialized training for handling capital cases has not been put in place in most of the states surveyed while some prosecutors are not disciplined with grave misconduct cases. The jury instructions in most of the states are poorly written and poorly conveyed making it hard for jurors to comprehend their roles and duties (Lawrence 174). States regularly fail to offer instructions in writing and instructions fail to describe important terms or to inform jurors that they may inflict life sentences even in cases devoid of mitigating factors or where infuriating factors are confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt (William 67). More legal representation It is unfortunate that at a time when more U.S citizens are finding themselves in distressed need of legal assistance, very few in apposition to obtain affordable legal matters that have an impact on their lives. Without a lawyer, low income earners regularly risk losing access to social amenities such as child custody, health care, food and health care. Perhaps establishing a national bar association which would enable lawyers to practice in the entire nation will solve part of the problem. Before the economic crisis, legal services firms were already inundated by the need for their services and under-funded to cater for the demand. The lawyers will meet the demand for their services in an easier way if they were allowed to practice in the entire nation. In order to address this justice vacuum and ensure that the promise of equal justice for everyone has been achieved, the New York State Bar Association and Touro Law Center are collaborating with scholars, lawyers, judges and activists from the state and within the nation to advance the discussion about availing a right to a lawyer for low-income earners with pressurizing civil claims. Need for national bar association in the United States has also been shown in Minnesota where the Minnesota State Bar Association Conflict Management and Dispute Resolution Section have proposed modification of the ABA’s Model regulations of Professional Conduct to permit Multidisciplinary Practice firms. They suggested that these should be amended to allow lawyers to provide legal services via a multidisciplinary organization run by lawyers and non-lawyers. This shows the need for a national bar association in the United States (William 79). Equal protection analysis The fourteenth modification to the American Constitutional guarantees that nobody should be denied equal protection of the law by any state. In analyzing laws challenged within the equal protection clause, the courts have established a three-tiered analytical structure. The three levels of judiciary analysis are the rational basis test, strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny. The suitable level of review depends on the nature of the legislation in context. Morbidly obese people should thus be acknowledged as a quasi-suspect class deserving intermediate scrutiny for purposes of equal protection analysis (Landmark 150). The idea of equal protection within the state as well as federal constitutions calls for the uniform treatment of people in terms of government actions. Normally, the government whether state or federal has the responsibility of enacting laws that can restrain particular groups of people from carrying out some activities like the buying or selling of tobacco or alcohol. In order to decide whether a restriction is constitutional, the courts have established an analysis based upon categorization of particular groups: suspect class, quasi suspect class and non-suspect class. People categorized as either suspect or quasi suspect are accorded more constitutional protection and thus the state must have a more persuasive justification for the restriction and the courts will analyze the laws under greater scrutiny. Although the federal constitution does not clearly detail any suspect classes, the American Supreme Court has determined three such categorizations: race, alienage and national origin. In addition, for reason s of federal equal protection analysis, the Supreme Court has also established an intermediate level of inspection for quasi-suspect classes like gender. In the recent case, Kerrigon v. Commissioner of Public Health for instance, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian people in America are the quasi-suspect type and thus the state restriction of same gender marriage was not constitutional. The Connecticut Court ruled that whether its same sex or opposite sex, the intention is to formalize a legally and binding officially recognized lasting family relationship that is legible for same rights and privileges. Both relationships have similar obligations as well as responsibilities. The court ruled that under the stated conditions, the doctrine of equal protection called for the courts to decide whether distinctions between the two groups warrant unequal treatment according to the law (Landmark 50). The court was first required to decide whether homosexuality was categorized as suspect or quasi-suspect class which would then accord gays and lesbians special protection. The court discovered that the gay have been treated unfairly and stigmatized by a long history of intentional and invidious discrimination. The particular feature that defines the members of this class, which is attraction to people of same sex, has no relevant relationship to their capability of being productive in the community, either in terms of family matters or productivity in the general context of the society since sexual orientation is a significant characteristic of personhood, even if chances are there that such an individual’s preferences can be changed, it would be entirely unacceptable for the nation to require a person to do so. Gay people also represent a unique minority of the population. These people have in the recent past made reasonable advances in trying to get equal treatment within the law. Nonetheless, it can be concluded that that such a minority group which continues to suffer as a result of century old sanctioned discrimination are legible for heightened judicial analysis to ascertain that those laws are not a consequence of historical prejudice and stereotyping. The chauvinism and hatred that the gays and lesbians have been subjected to and in certain compliments, possibly even more harsh than those confronted by other classes that have been subjected to sensitive judicial protection. The court observed that only racial and religious minorities have experienced such an intense unfair treatment than the homosexuals (landmark 35). People who are categorized as either suspect or quasi suspect usually have the following characteristics. Political Powerlessness Individuals categorized in the suspect group are either structurally or functionally disqualified from the process. The history of earlier discrimination, past lack of education, and the ingrained mind-set that their votes will be irreverent, has established a situation where minorities and the ladies are not ready to vote or run for office. These challenges are very important although there are laws and regulations that protect and encourage the ladies and the minorities vote or vie for top posts in the nations, most of them have not yet been convinced to do so (landmark 35). Immutable Trait There is no possible means of altering the distinguishing feature that places the person into the suspect or quasi-suspect group, an additional perspective of looking into this is that there is no free entry into and egress class.. This is the main disparity between race and gender which cannot be altered easily and another feature such as wealth, which, at least tentatively can be changed. Method of statutory construction Statutory interpretation is the practice of interpreting and applying legislation. Some form of interpretation is always essential when a case entails a statute. Occasionally the words of a statute have a clear and straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some uncertainty or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be settled by the judge. To determine the meanings of statutes, judges apply various tools and means of statutory elucidation which include conventional canons of statutory elucidation, legislative history and purpose. In universal law jurisdiction the jurisdiction may apply regulations of statutory jurisdiction to legislation established by the legislation or to delegated legislation like organizational agency regulations. The method of statutory construction that is relevant in today’s world is the New Textualists. The term new textualism was proposed by Professor William N. Eskridge Jr to describe the proponents of a practice of rigorous text-based statutory interpretation that was developed in the 1980s. The method relies Holmes’s view that it is the implication of the plaintext and not the in depth analysis of the legislature that forms the basis of statute’s meaning. There are however some variations in degree between the new textualist and the convectional textualist or plain-meaning method to statutory elucidation (Karl N 51). While the traditional textualist or plain-meaning method is based on legislative intent as the basis of interpretation, in the new textualist approach the judges seek for external sources. The external sources like legislative history provide the outcome resulting from a particular elucidation. This method is described by Chief Justice Rehnquist as one whose role is to provide effect to the intent of Congress. The textualist approach uses a harder version of the plain meaning method. The method describes an enhanced willingness to seek for a statutory plain meaning and less willingness to refer to legislative history either to verify or to rebut the plain meaning. The new textualists are not concerned with legislative intention as they seek to differentiate what the legislation implied in establishing the language of the statute. Unwilling to revert to legislative history due to its unreliability and devoid of legal authority, the new textualist will take into account in addition to the texts language its position in the statutory system, other associated applications in the statute, the framework of the statute entirely or other associated statutory systems. The method also uses grammatical and plain meaning canons of construction and vocabulary definitions to decode the meaning of the meaning of words that have been applied. Another difference that makes new texualists a superior method to other approaches is its rejection of the legislative purpose as the item of elucidation and this is essentially facilitated by formalist concerns. New textualist also adheres strictly to the text and to constitutional and other boundaries of judicial prudence (Einer 238). The new texualists are more enthusiastic than the traditional texualists to allow elucidations that do not seem to be the appropriate result for the parties involved. This can clearly be deduced from the case, United States v. Marshall. In the case, the Seventh Circuit took into account whether the phrase mixture or substance having a detectable amount as applied in federal narcotics act was limited to pure LSD or also entailed the paper blotter, sugar cube or other intermediate in which the LSD was traded. The federal statute when issued offered a scheme of graduated penalties based on the mass of the drug. By calculating the mass of the blotter paper which was higher than the pure mass of LSD exponentially, most of the cases would lead to a sharp sentencing differential depending on whether the mass was of the pure LSD it carried. If the mass of the transporting medium was calculated, a drug kingpin handling pure LSD would by selling thousands of doses of the pure LSD that had a smaller mass be exposed to a relatively shorter prison term than a street level vendor trading in LSD doses having a medium weighing a gram or more. It is necessary for the Congress and the legislatures of the states to pass a law mandating that the courts apply one particular method of statutory construction due to the following reasons (Karl N 45). Internal and external consistency It is often assumed that a statute will be elucidated in such a way that it is internally consistent. A specific section of the statute should not be different from the rest of the decree. The sui generis rule is applicable to solving the problems of giving meaning to various words where some of the words or a single word is ambiguous or inherently unclear. For instance in Criminal Law a statute might call a means real feature of unlawfully and maliciously. In this case, whereas the meaning of the word malicious is clearly understood, the other word maliciously is not clear within this context (Karl N64). Justice Scalia’s backing of textualism is specifically notable for its criticism of efforts to divine legislative purpose to determine the statute’s intention and for entire rejection of the application of legislative history. As a matter of fact, Justice Scalia observes the examination of legislative purpose when it is adequately separated from the context of the statute, as a maneuver for judicial lawmaking. When applied to interpret statutes, judicial lawmaking of this kind is a sure means for incompetence and usurpation. It involves among other activities judges substituting their own strategy favorites for those of the legislature. The notion of legal lawmaking is disgusting to democratic and separation of powers principles because it entails unelected life-tenured federal judges. Judicial law making also expands the unpredictability and arbitrariness of the law and therefore weakens rule of law principles because the legislature as well as other interested parties can know earlier with sureness how judges will reframe the law to fit their personal preferences. According to Justice Scalia, the ineffectiveness and usurpation entailed by such purposive approaches of statutory construction are clearly illustrated by the application of legislative history to ensure the purpose of the legislature (Einer 237). Conclusion Measures can be adopted by the Congress to help conviction and impeachment in the chambers. Basing on the judicial misbehavior proof, the Congress may adopt statutes which give the power of removing judges. Following this procedures any accused judge will have to afford the due process rights linked to serious offence conviction. The procedures meeting the entire requirement would finally culminate in removal. The analysis gives the assumption that the interpretation of the constitution should carry the original meaning Works cited Einer, Elhauge. Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation. Harvard: Harvard University Press (2008), p. 237–39 Farnsworth, Allan. Introduction to the legal system of the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Karl, Llewellyn. Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules of Cannons about How Statutes are to be Construed. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2002 Landmark, Thomas. Power and Rights in US Constitution Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Lawrence, Friedman. American Law in the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Official Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana, pp. 292-94. William Burnham, Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States, 4th ed. Oxford: St. Paul: Thomson West, 2008. Lammert-Reeves, Ruth. Ruth Lammert-Reeves (Author) › Visit Amazon's Ruth Lammert-Reeves Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central Get Into Law School: A Strategic Approach . Kaplan Publishing, 2008. Read More