Constitution of the United States - Essay Example

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 Is this provision out of date?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. Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides for the appointment of judiciary and the removal of federal judges by the way of impeachment. They can remain in their positions during the currency of their good behavior. Good behavior means that a federal judge may serve for the rest of his/her life or they may resign or retire from office. They can either be impeached or through conviction by the way of congressional votes. There are certain judges who have resigned prior to their impeachment. The impeachment clause of the article 3 of the US constitution still holds good, even after 222 years of its ratification. The impeachment of federal judges is also subject to judicial review and can be called into question by the Supreme Court as any other law of the land (Impeachment of Federal Judges David Barton - 09/2002). However, unlike other state crimes, impeachment of judges cannot be reviewed or examined for adjudication by the jury. Since, for a federal judge to serve for the whole life is guaranteed only subject to the good behavior, therefore intent of the constitution is very clear. Therefore, until now 61 judges have been removed. The examples of the judicial abuses are bribery, misuse of power and misappropriation of justice (Farnsworth, the Legal System of the U.S. and Landmark, Power & Rights in US Constitutional Law). Constitution’s clear intent and the judicial trust have to be understood before the invocation of impeachment of judges should be discussed. There are numerous occasions on which the supreme court has dismissed the legislation of the congress (Federalist 73, Alexander Hamilton). Over the last more than two centuries the life in the United States has entirely changed. The constitution is the guardian of American liberties which not only guides the lives of American people but also has become a beacon of light for the rest of people in the world. The will of the people is represented through the Congress by the way of votes. If the Congressmen do not represent the wishes, aspirations, and desires of American people they go out of office. Therefore, all the legislation made by the Congress represents social, economic, political, moral, ethical and religious needs of the country. All the laws and legislations passed by the Congress and ratified by the Senate and the President truly speaks for American nation. But, it is an irony of fate that judges of the Federal Court consider themselves detached, immune and all powerful in the arena of American life. Not once but many times Supreme Court has set aside the laws and legislations passed by Congress on one or the other pretext. The Federal judges interpret the tricky social and moral issues in their own way. The founders of the nation like Martin Luther King and Thomas Jefferson have already limited the authority of judiciary by saying that the Federal judges and judiciary cannot better understand the lives and the needs of lives of the people of a country, as the politicians can do. However, contrary to this the federal judges continue to counter and set aside the significant and critical legislation made by the Congress. In view of the above background removal of the judges from the office only on the pretext of impeachment is not only deficient in nature but has become obsolete. The absolute authority of the judges and the supreme court to set aside any legislation made by the majority of the congressmen should also be reviewed, revisited and revised. The good behavior of the judges to remain in office or impeachment should not determine the matter of their tenure only. A constitutional amendment should be made that the Federal judges would continue in office in the pleasure of general public. This pleasure should be determined through a regular referendum in all the states including the Federal judges and the Supreme court judges after every three years. If the judges of the Federal court lose the confidence of people they should be considered as honorably retired. The impeachment clause only defines certain immoral, illicit and undesirable actions that are detrimental to the good behavior of a judge, and can render him or her impeachable by the Congress. However, impeachment clause which has become outdated and obsolete does not necessarily contain the defiance of public confidence as an action to be the base of impeachment. In order to keep the American values of liberty and civil rights above board and out of the reach of uncompromising judges of the states and supreme court this has become necessary that the impeachment clause of article 3 of US constitution should not only be reviewed but also expanded within the frame work of US constitution. Hence, it is concluded that impeachment of federal judges is although necessary but not a sufficient clause under article 3 of US constitution to liberate the hearts, minds and thoughts of American people to be translated into legislation through their representatives in Congress. As soon as the impeachment procedure is revised and made broad based it will be beneficial for American nation as a whole. 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? In the Unites States most of the law schools require a four years education as a precondition to the admission. They also required satisfactory scores which are required for the law school admission tests. Other than this the essays for the admission recommendations letters from the prominent lawyers or judges and the individual abilities are also the basis for admission to the law degrees. In my personal opinion admission to the law degree should not essentially require a four years graduate program before admission to the law colleges. It is more appropriate that the law colleges should admit the students after an education of 1 to 2 years of college (Farnsworth, the Legal System of the U.S. and Landmark, Power & Rights in US Constitutional Law). The admission policy for law colleges will become at par with the medical colleges and engineering colleges. The aptitude of students is more important than the basic education. Law is a very temperamental profession. It needs grooming of students in an environment that is required to groom the students in the law subjects within the four walls of colleges and universities to a maximum period of time. So that instead of passing time in the basic education the students should be passing their time in law colleges. The students in the law colleges require more interaction, discussions, group works and college lectures instead of working under the rigorous environment of studies like medical or engineering universities. The students at the law colleges are also sometimes working people who have a lot of experience at their credit. The academic sessions of the law colleges have to be treated differently than the students of other colleges. In view of the foregoing it is recommended that the admissions in the law colleges should be given on the basis of college education that is 1 to 2 levels. This requirement would facilitate the students to grab the materials more easily and it would save their time for the rest of their carrier. The students after having graduated from the law colleges are also required to be registered with the American Bar Association (Farnsworth, The Legal System of the U.S. and Landmark, Power & Rights in US Constitutional Law). The membership and registration with the ABA also requires the fresh graduates to undergo another test interview process, without which it is no possible for them to get admission to the America Bar Association. Besides the above requirement the fresh graduates have to take legal review exercises and membership with the law journals. The mock trials and moot courts attendance is yet another requirement before award of license to the fresh law graduates. Clerkship with the state and federal judges is yet another requirement. Hence, for the law graduates it is a very lengthy and hectic process before settling into their profession as junior lawyers. It is not possible to get a law degree for an ordinary student without going through financial hardships. In order to get through for a law graduate, it becomes a tiring and troublesome process before becoming a junior lawyer. The L1, L2 and L3 programs can only be got cleared within a period of 1 year each. So a LLB degree is not easy to get. And its other requirements are still too many. Therefore, It is in the fitness of things that the law colleges should admit the students after intermediate level education on the basis of good results and aptitude tests. The requirement of four years under graduate course for admission into the law colleges is not only a cumbersome and financially unviable option but also superfluous in all the above ways that have been described (National Science Foundation 2006). It can be, therefore, concluded that four years under graduates’ degree requirement for admission into the law colleges is undesirable and should be dispensed with. 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. Under the US constitution there is no bar on any individual to move around and practice his/her profession for earning a legal livelihood. There is much precedence all over the world where lawyers can practice their profession in any part of their country under national license. Countries like India are bigger than the United States but any qualified lawyer can practice in any state of India. Hence, it is proper that there should also be a National Bar Council in United States where the senior lawyers should be registered after a certain and specified period of practice in the lower courts (Farnsworth, the Legal System of the U.S. and Landmark, Power & Rights in US Constitutional Law). The National Bar Council should be constituted by the way of polling amongst all state bar councils and the elected members should man the executive bodies in the American National Bar Council. Such a National Bar Council would not be in the interests of lawyers but it would also serve the national interests at large. National Bar Council in USA is not only necessary but also imperative for the national development and growth of legal profession in the Unites States. In accordance with practice laws of the lawyers it is required that they should be allowed in any state of their choice and across the country. There are certain cases which emerge in one state and then their links are found in the other states. Under the present system it becomes almost impossible for a lawyer of one state to appear before the court of other state just because of the jurisdiction of his license (San Diego County Bar Association 1969). It becomes practically impossible to collect the clues and evidence of the cases particularly the criminal corporate and civil law suits. This situation gives advantage to the criminals to commit crime in one state and disappear in the other. Cases linger on, kill the time, a prosecution, branch of judiciary or a federal police and the intelligence agencies collect the evidences and sort out the case before the lower courts in the states. The National Bar Council is also necessary to protect the rights of the lawyers and play as a bargaining agent before other branches of the government. The macro-legal issues can be brought into the focus of the National Bar Council and it can also provide a breeding ground for the selection and recruitment of Federal judges for the judiciary. The Bar Councils in the state can act as essential and basic ingredients of the National Bar Council and can act as its vote bank. National Bar Council in America can also stand surety through its judicial activity, for the real separation of judiciary from executive at all levels of the country. The National bar council in America can open up its branches in all the federating states of America by having its internet libraries, academic libraries and book houses, the net working of the lawyers at the national level can also become very easy. This networking amongst the lawyers through the National Bar Council in America can not only help lawyers, judiciary, the executive but also the public at large. In the present state of affairs the legal difficulties being faced by public, lawyers and judiciary due to the non-existing of National Bar Council can be easily done away with. So, it is in the fitness of things that the National Bar Council in America should come into existence as early as possible. The young lawyers registered with the lower courts can come up to certain experience to join the National Bar Council and have flair of working throughout the country. This will give them confidence and groom their carriers. The regulatory framework of the National Bar Council can be the same as that of state bar councils (Judges of the United States Courts - Kent, Samuel B). The skeleton of the national bar council is very easy to understand as in the state bar councils all the members of the district bar councils can also participate, similarly the members of the state bar councils can be the member of national bar council. Hence, it can be concluded that the national bar council should be immediately established in the United states of America. It will boost the confidence of lawyers throughout the country. It will act as a legal think tank for the country. The lawyers will have a fair chance of working throughout the United States. It will help the judicial system over all in the country. It will enrich the experience of lawyers with different varieties of cases which are peculiar to certain states like some states are very rich in corporate cultures (University of Utah 2006). The others are very much cross-cultural. While, other states depend upon heavy industry etc. so, the contours of legal face are quite different for different states in the country, except for a few ones. So, it should be immediately translated into action. So that the positive results for the legal profession in America can be seen. Already, it seems that it has been late. So the National Bar Council in America can fill many other gaps in the legal arena that has not so far been gauged through. 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? The statistics on the health have shown that more than 5 % people in America are obese. There are different reasons for this obesity. The obesity is also common in the women as in the men. However, white American national and Afro-Americans are more prone to this obesity. Obesity as a disease has also become a national character and has gone into the inheritance and genes of certain families. The obesity without any obvious external reason is called morbid obesity (Farnsworth, the Legal System of the U.S. and Landmark, Power & Rights in US Constitutional Law). The people with this disease are almost crippled. They feel difficulty in moving around and managing the daily routine matter for them. They can be compared with the limping and broken organs people who need armchairs for help. These people are also mostly prone to diabetes. Since, these people are crippled they can be rightly termed as disabled. And their treatment under the disabilities act is the most fair and proper way of action. Therefore, these people deserve special consideration by the society at large. And the law is also expected to give them fair treatment which should protect them from any harm in the society. As a matter of justice, state is responsible to help out, protect and rehabilitate those people who cannot help them; therefore, morbidly obese people should also be preferably treated as disabled people and need to be rehabilitated under the law. In my opinion morbidly obese people should also be recognized as quasi-suspect class for the purpose of equal protection analysis. They should be designated as disabled people because of the reason that there is every likelihood that they would be discriminately treated by their employers. Morbid obesity is not a disability that can be cured. It goes with the life of people and gets them till death. These people become dependent on the normal people and deserve special treatment and attention. In a recent court case called Cook v Rhode Island department of mental health and hospitals, the 1st court of appeals has already faced difficulties for the first time in deciding whether the morbidly obese people should also be considered as disabled under federal discriminatory employment law. The decision was based on the 1973 act for rehabilitation. The old interpretations of disabilities were stretched and applied in this case. The case had a retrospective effect from 1991 and this great decision will automatically have far-reaching implications for the benefit of morbidly obese people under the disabilities act. The discrimination in the federal discriminatory employment law is no more a bar on the equal treatment of such people. Now they will feel well protected like any other disabled person in America. The first court of appeals decision part three has further recommended assistance of morbidly obese people under the rehabilitation act. Therefore, when read with rehabilitation act, the disabilities act has given a boost to the protected environment to the morbidly obese people in America, not only with respect to the removal of discrimination in employment, but also their rehabilitation. The US constitution guarantees the civil rights of all the people in the country across board. The infirm, minor destitute, disabled and marginal people have every right over the society to be taken care off. This is required not only under the intent of the constitution but also the ethical and moral obligations. The morbidly obese people are usually seen left at the mercies of people where they need help, love and care of others (German Federal Ministry of Education). Their disease is to be considered as a fault in their body for which they are not at all responsible. So, as an infirm or disabled person the morbidly obese people have every right on the other citizens to be helped at looked after. The law of the land is duty bound through its institutions to protect these people from any sort of discrimination in the society whether it is the social relationing or it is it is employment, health care, salaries and wages or political rights. The above quoted judgment of the first circuit review board upholds the spirit of the justice in its proper form. Hence, morbidly obese people need to be protected under disabilities and rehabilitation act of the United States of America. This protection would not only be beneficial for the overall image of American society within its boundaries but it would also give a good impression about American law system all over the world and would certainly enhance the credibility if American legal system and its judiciary within the contemporary judiciaries of the world. 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 method of statutory construction by the courts of law makes sense in today’s world. Congress and the legislature of the states should not pass a law mandating that the courts should apply only one particular method of statutory construction. This is because statutory construction of laws is a very specialized, legal and judicial expertise which the common legislators in the Congress and legislatures of states may not have. According to the canons of statutory construction in vogue, the judicial saving construction method leads to the unlimited expansion of judicial authority to make public laws in lieu of the Congress which is a democratically elected part of the government (Farnsworth, the Legal System of the U.S. and Landmark, Power & Rights in US Constitutional Law). Under the people’s legislation doctrine the establishment of federal common law authority by the courts casts great doubts on the constitutionality of the statutes. So far the statutory construction of law is being determined by the courts and not by the administrative branches of the government who are required to administer and execute the law (Matter of Suffolk County Fire Academy Vocational Educ. & Extension Bd. v New York State, 2009 NY Slip Op 09591, Decided on December 24, 2009, Appellate Division, and Third Department). The construction of statutes under the public law amounts to the interpretation of different terms and definitions used for the purpose of execution of justice. Therefore, the courts of law have be left with the authority to determine the definitions of terms like salary, employment, wages, employees, employers, duty timings, law suits, damages etc. if the law courts are not allowed to construct the statutes for the public common law then it would become almost impossible for them to adjudicate on various cases (By Harvey Randall, Esq., The Public Employment Law Press). The statutory construction by the courts of law are done on the basis of textual analysis, circumstantial evidence, external environment and the past precedence etc. therefore, all these matters have to be left to the court of law to determine the ways and means of how to construct a statute (433 N.Y.S. 2d 345, 350). So far the courts of law have developed certain basic principles on which statutory construction is laid. These principles are variously called Ejusdem generis and Expressio Unius exclusion alterius, under the severability clause (Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction 5th ed. 1994). It is, therefore, in the fitness of things that the law courts should be allowed to continue under their own canons and principles to determine the construction of statutes and the legislature at the federal level and the state level should not be allowed to cut down the mandate of law courts. It has many other implications if done so (Judges of the United States Courts - Delahay, Mark W). These implications are given as under in detail so as to justify the continuation of the mandate of the courts of law in the matter of construction of statues under the public law. First and foremost reason is that the courts of law must remain independent in the execution of justice through interpretation of different circumstances and analyzing the cases according to their own independent application of mind. If the authority of courts is limited then the administration of justice becomes very difficult due to unnecessary meddling by the political organ of the state i.e. legislature. The authority of courts and the authority of legislature should remain divorced from each other. Since, there is a system of appeal in the higher courts against the decisions of lower courts; therefore, it is safe that the ways and means adopted by the courts of law for the construction of statutes should remain in their jurisdiction. The right of statutory construction by the courts of law provides not only a confidence to its clients and establishes its credibility. The law in general does not take care of micro-level applications of its intents. It is for the law courts to see how the statutes under the laws have to be constructed so that their applicability should bring out the desired results of justice and fair play for the people who become appellants and also for the people who become respondents. Contrary to the authority and power of the federal judges to set aside the pieces of legislation in the form of public law it is recommended that the statutory construction authority and its procedures should remain the sole property of courts of law.   References 1- Farnsworth, the Legal System of the U.S. and Landmark, Power & Rights in US Constitutional Law. 2- German Federal Ministry of Education. "U.S. Higher Education / Evaluation of the Almanac Chronicle of Higher Education". http://www.blk-bonn.de/papers/hochschulsystem_usa.pdf. Retrieved 2008-05-26.  3- Impeachment of Federal Judges David Barton - 09/2002. 4- Judges of the United States Courts - Delahay, Mark W. Federal Judicial Center. http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=598"Judges of the United States Courts - English, George Washington Federal Judicial Center. http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=709. 5- Judges of the United States Courts - Kent, Samuel B. Federal Judicial Center. 6- National Science Foundation 2006. "Time to Degree of U.S. Research Doctorate Recipients". Science Resource Statistics NSF 06-312: 7. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/nsf06312.pdf.  7- San Diego County Bar Association 1969. "Ethics Opinion 1969-5". http://www.sdcba.org/ethics/ethicsopinion69-5.html. Retrieved 2008-05-26. 8- University of Utah 2006. “University of Utah – The Graduate School – Graduate Handbook”. http://www.gradschool.utah.edu/catalog/degree.php. Read More