The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights - Essay Example

Question number The Constitution is in itself a social contract that binds by its terms and conditions the people and their government in a civilsociety. It contains the body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are consistently carried out. The Constitution has the status of a supreme law, to which all other law must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered. The United States Constitution serves as the framework of government and it is likewise the source of rights which uphold the individual against the powers of the state. The framers of the Constitution, most notably James Madison advocated the interrelated and interdependent systems of values, political structures and political processes. These interconnected systems are the very essence of a democratic government which derives its authority from its people which consequently makes it a government by the people. With these, it likewise carries the responsibility of safeguarding liberty and the prevention of tyranny, which can be inferred in the Constitution itself. . When the Constitution speaks of values it refers to popular consent and personal liberty among others. The United States Constitution was passed to preserve individual liberties against the incursions by the government. This preservation of individual liberties is all enshrined to what is termed as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the individual; similarly, it imposes limitations on the power of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of the aforesaid rights. The Bill of Rights is distinctively designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security. The Bill of Rights is enshrined in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. With respect to political structures, the United States Constitution provides for the Separation of Power and the system of check and balance. By political structure denotes that these structure safeguards the nuisance of tyranny either by the majority or the minority. The Separation of Powers as manifested in the structure of government in which the powers of government are separated into three branches of government, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. This is such, for the reason that no one branch had enough power to dominate the other. These branches of government were independent of each other, but necessitated to cooperate with each other to govern. In the Federalist No. 51, Madison wrote "the great security against a gradual concentration of several powers in the same department consists in giving those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others." And as such, the separation of power prevents a concentration of authority in one person or one group which might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of the democratic institution of the country. Such separation of powers is designed to secure actions, preclude over action, and prevent despotism and to achieve efficiency. On the other hand, the Principle of Checks and Balances is a system by which the Constitution provides each department certain powers by which it may definitely restrain the other branch form improvident action, which in so doing, maintains the balance among the branches of government and accordingly preserves the will of the sovereign as expressed in the constitution. Political Processes encompasses free and fair elections, majority rules and freedom of speech among others. The free and fair elections are manifested in the constitution wherein it is provided that as a republican government, it is incumbent upon the people to select their representatives who will make decisions for them. Election is a form of participation wherein people engage in political processes of shaping the government's authority. And it is through election that the elected officials acquire their authority form those which they govern and in return, they are made accountable for their acts. In relation with this, the majority rule a basic principle of democracy is likewise enshrined in the Constitution, for in democratic society, majority voting in a democratic decision making processes is vital to the selection of officials and in the determination. of policies concerning them. Related to these is the Freedom of Speech, wherein the people can peaceably assemble and can petition the government for redress of grievance. Aside from the abovementioned precautions, it is also noteworthy to mention that the United States Constitution is concisely written and as such, the intention of the framers can be easily given effect. Similarly, the Constitution is beyond the reach of temporary excitement or popular passion. It is likewise intended to endure for ages and at the same time it provides for safe growth and expansion. This is for the reason that the framers through Article V provides for the guidelines in which amendments may be proposed and ratified. And changes are not allowed easily; it has to undergo formal methods and provides for limitation on ratification. The United States Constitution is in deed not just a collection of concisely and well written document. It is the personification of the democratic ideals which safeguards rights liberties and at the same time it provides for the epitome of a free and sovereign country by the structure of its government. Question no. 2 The Judiciary plays a major role in the structuring of the fundamental aspects of law and justice. Judicial power as provided for in Article III section 1 of the United States Constitution shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such other inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. In line with this, the primary function of a court of justice is the dispensation of justice. In the performance of this function, the court decides actual controversies brought before it and interprets the law of the State. Its judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and in equity. Similarly, judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. Jurisdiction, mootness, ripeness, standing and political questions are among the minimum requirements of law for further action before a court take cognizance of a case or controversy 1. It is important that a court must have jurisdiction over the parties or the property involved in the controversy. Jurisdiction determines which court should properly adjudicate a case. As such, it is the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case. It is conferred by the Constitution, by federal and state statutes. In order to exercise its jurisdiction the court must meet certain requisites. First, there must be an actual controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power. Actual controversy calls for the exercise of judicial power wherein the plaintiff can assert his legal rights and claims, which correspondingly be resolved by law and facts. Second, the parties in the actual controversy must have legal standing to sue and be sued. The constitutional requirements for legal standing on the actual, imminent, distinct and palpable injury must not be abstract. Third, the case must present the dispute and issue must be ripe for adjudication and it is likewise a case that the court has the power to remedy, and finally, the case cannot be moot2. Correspondingly, the Ripeness doctrine3 prohibits the federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over a case until an actual controversy is presented which involves a threat which is real and immediate. In relation to this, it is also noteworthy to discuss the Political Question Doctrine. A political question is one under which the US constitution has committed decision-making on the subject matter to another branch of the federal government or there are inadequate standards for the court to apply or the court feels it is prudent not to interfere. The federal court will decline to rule on the instant case, it being a political question because the bill involves a political matter that is not justiciable without infringing the powers of the legislative branch and it is likewise not accompanied by a manageable standard for resolving it. Aside from this, checks on the Judiciary consist of executive and legislative checks, as well as public opinion and judicial precedents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the United States Supreme Court as well as lower court judges, in its interpretation and application of the law unavoidably becomes a policy maker themselves, for the reason that it is vested with the power of judicial review The dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan in Reynolds v. Sims and that of Justice Frankfurter in Baker v. Carr exemplified what judicial power is all about. The Judiciary through the Supreme Court or other Federal and State Court should in deed "take the lead" in promoting reform when other branches of government failed to act. And as such it should serve as in Justice Frankfurter's word "sustained public confidence in its moral sanctions," by complete detachment from political entanglements. And since the judiciary is mandated to only have judicial functions and in consonance with the separation of powers, it should not and cannot be required to exercise any power, or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administering of judicial functions. In the case of Bush v. Gore, the above mentioned Justices will move to dismiss the petition of Bush. This is for the reason that the primary question of the case involves a political question. It should be noted that in the case of Bush v. Gore, involves the validity of the recount involving the manner on how the votes were cast in some Florida counties, which is either in a punch card or an optical scanner. Similarly, it can also be inferred that methods for casting votes also varies from state to state. Following the line of argument of the previous Justices, the issue with regards the standard and uniform means of carrying out the hand recount did not violate the equal protection clause guaranteed by the constitution. The Legislature should enact law which will promulgate rules and regulation for its effective and standard implementation all through out the country, enough to be situated under like circumstances or conditions and the same privileges and obligations should be followed uniformly wll through out the country. Therefore, it is not proper for the court to address the issue, for it will infringe on the legislature's power to fully legislate the said bill the reason being, that the uniform means of carrying out the recount is within the ambit of the legislature. Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Court must dismiss the case for being contrary to the political question doctrine, which is the safety measure enshrined in the Constitution to preserve the separation of powers among the branches of government. Being a political question, it basically concern issues dependent upon wisdom and not legality of a particular measure. Works Cited Baker v. Carr. 369 U.S. 186. (1962) Burns, James Mac Gregor and others. Government by the People 15th edition USA: Prentice Hall, 1993. Bush v. Gore. 531 U.S. 98. (2000) De Funis v. Odegaard. 416 U.S. 312 (1974) International Longshoremen's and Warehousmen's Union Local 37 v. Board. 347 U.S. 222 (1954) http://www.uscourts.gov/understand02/content_4_0.html Madison, James. "The Federalist No. 51" 02 March 2007. Reynolds v. Sims. 377 U.S. 533 (1964) Read More