This Is What Was Written:
he Supreme Court was created so that it would make decisions regarding important cases in the country and ensure that justice is granted. However, recently the Supreme Court has been making decisions which are controversial which has made people believe that it is overstepping its authority and that it is trying to rewrite laws. This is indeed true because some of the decisions that it has made have clearly shown that it is overstepping its authority. The decisions made by the Supreme Court clearly show that instead of interpreting the law and constitution, they prefer making laws. Some decisions it is making may be termed as law-related review which is a way of the Supreme Court rewriting laws which shows that it is indeed overstepping its authority. One major instance that shows the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority and engaged in rewriting laws instead of interpreting them is on Obamacare. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, backed the Obamaâ€™s Administration healthcare law where it granted the taxpayers subsidies which were not authorized by the Congress. Although the decision was made so that it would save the flawed law, it did not perform its function which is to interpret the law. Instead, the Court rewrote the law while it has no constitutional authority to do so. Hence, this shows that indeed the Supreme Court did overstep its authority. Although the Supreme Court usually makes decisions as per the law, some of the decisions that it makes tend to affect the criminal justice system. One major area that the decisions of the Court usually affect the criminal justice system is on the issue of organized crime. This is because the court usually makes decisions that law enforcement agenciesâ€™ proper authority to act needs to be legislated. For instance, the court made a decision that police need warrants before they search a personâ€™s premises. This affects the criminal justice system since police officers cannot enter a criminalâ€™s premises giving the criminal an opportunity to hide important evidence
#1 question ?
the U.S. Supreme Court cannot re-write laws only Congress, correct? Thinking critically, if the court only looks at the most important cases as you have stated. As a result, there will more than likely always be different opinions as you imply in your next sentence. What do you think?
This is what was written by a class mate and I have to respond to it he wrote:
As with every other part of the American justice system the Supreme Courts role is to serve as a “check” between the legislative and executive branches of our government. Some of the supreme courts decisions have caused conflict over the years, recently the travel ban put in place by President Trump on travelers from certain countries. For me, it is important to remember that the Constitution was written to protect United States citizens exclusively. In my opinion, in this case specifically, the Supreme Court acted appropriately by ruling that the President has the executive power to limit travel into our Country from other Countries to protect its citizens. Not saying that if someone from one of those Countries wanted to immigrate to the United States they couldn’t, but would have to go through a more in depth vetting process to do so.
As it relates to the Criminal Justice System, the Supreme Courts decisions can tend to be confusing to those working in Law Enforcement. Where the law says one thing but the Supreme Court hands down a ruling that suggest something different leaving all laws open to interpretation. In my opinion the law is the law, once it is put in place, there should be no “wiggle room”.
This is what was written :
Law administration agencies usually use different forces to ensure that there is peace in the society. The commonly forces that they use are deadly force and also use of less-than-lethal force. Deadly force can be termed as the force that may result in serious bodily damage or injury or even death to another individual. This type of force is only allowed to be used under extreme conditions. Less-than-lethal force, on the other hand, can be termed as the force which when used may not really cause serious injuries on an individual or even lead to death. It is the type of force which is used by police to bring law and order in the country. An example of use of deadly force is when a police officer is patrolling in a certain location at night and then he or she is violently confronted by a group of men. Hence, the officer may use deadly force, as a form of self-defence, where he may shoot the men which may result in some getting seriously injured while some may even lose their lives. An example of use of less-than-lethal force is where police officers use teargas to disperse a group of people who are believed to be causing disturbance to a certain community. This is use of less-than-lethal force since no one can be seriously hurt. These two examples can indeed be said to effectively apply to both deadly force and less-than-lethal force. This is because in the first example, the individuals would be seriously hurt and even some may die because of the force used by the police officer which clearly shows that it is the use of deadly force. Similarly, in the second example, the individuals would not be seriously hurt because the means which the police use would not result in any serious injuries. This clearly shows that it is the use of less-than-lethal force.
the mere presence of a police officer in uniform might be considered a degree of force. What do you think, academically and critically? Have you researched this?