How did the framers primarily seek to protect the judiciary from shift in public opinion?

1 answer:

6 0

The framers rejected a direct election to the judiciary, even though state judged and some local judges are elected, the majority are not. This removes politics from the branch and also guarantees that the ones who are judges are because of their knowledge.

They removed the house of representatives from selecting or confirming federal judges. The Senate is the house that has to confirm it.

They also did not put terms on judicial works and prohibit the decrease in salary. This two are very important measures because it guarantees the independence of the branch. Such as when they decide against the government or such.

You might be interested in

ASAP MULTIPLE CHOICE

yulyashka [42]

Answer: ASAP MULTIPLE CHOICE

What was a result of Britain's refusal to stop selling opium in China in the 1830s?

A. China helped negotiate a treaty with Turkey that promoted the sale of opium there.

B. Britain and China fought the Opium Wars.

C. Britain and China signed a treaty giving Britain territory in exchange for stopping.

D. Both countries developed a joint program for treating those who had become

addicted

Explanation: icrecream

8 0

3 years ago

What happened July 29 1914?

adell [148]

Britain calls for international mediation to resolve the worsening crisis. Russia urges German restraint, but the Russians begin partial troop mobilization as a precaution. The Germans then warn Russia on its mobilization and begin to mobilize themselves. Austria Hungary invades Serbia.

3 0

3 years ago

Due today please help

Aleks04 [339]

The answer is probably c or d

8 0

2 years ago

IDENTIFY According to conservatives, what is the

Karolina [17]

Answer:

1. Altering the Saving Rate.

2. Reduction in Non-Plan Revenue Expenditure.

3. Policies to Raise the Rate of Productivity Growth.

4. Technological Progress.

5. Reduction in Government Regulation.

Explanation:

hope this helps if not let me know have a great day

5 0

2 years ago

6.Imagine you are living in Los Angeles in 1944 and have just read about the case of Korematsu v. the United States. Write a let

Sati [7]

Dear Editor of the Los Angeles Times,Hello. I am a white American citizen living in Los Angeles. I have just read about theSupreme Court case of Korematsu v. the United States, and had some opinions I would like todiscuss. This case as made me very irate as I do not agree with the way Japanese Americansare being treated.I believe that forcing Japanese Americans into internment camps is unfair andunconstitutional. It is bypassing their rights as American citizens. Yes, they are of Japanesedissent, but they chose to be here. They left their home country, culture, family, and basicallyeverything they knew behind just to become citizens in this country. They want nothing morethan to take advantage of all this great land has to offer, just like everyone else. It is unfair todiscriminate against them because of their nationality. Korematsu should not have beenarrested for resisting containment, as freedom is a founding principal of the United States. Iagree with the dissenting opinion, as the majority voted to withhold Korematsu’s conviction

3 0

3 years ago