Answer:
Explanation:
If you have ever wondered what Andrew Jackson's presidency was like this is the essay for you. In this essay I will discuss Andrew Jackson's presidency and what he did for America, for an example he was a president competing in the Corrupt Election of 1824, he created the Jacksonian democracy, and led the Indian Removal Act.
Before Andrew Jackson was president he was elected because of the corrupt bargain. After the votes were counted in the election of 1824, no one had received the majority of votes although Andrew Jackson was in the lead with John Quincy Adams in 2nd. Hence the election was in the hands of the House of Representatives The House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson. Everybody thought this was an unfair and corrupt bargain between John Adams and Clay because Clay was a speaker for the House of Representatives. Therefore when the next election came around a large majority of people chose Andrew Jackson. So he won the election and became president for two terms.
In 1828 Andrew Jackson established the Jacksonian Democracy. When he expanded the suffrage that caused people to have more voting rights. The Jacksonian democracy then then had it so that none of the new states entering the Union required white men to own property in order to vote, and by the Civil War all but one of the states had no longer required property requirements.
The Indian Removal Act was applied to the Seminoles because they refused to leave their ancestral lands in Florida, sparking the Second Seminole War in 1835. Seminole chief Osceola led the resistance, which proved costly to the United States in terms of both money and casualties. The US Army emerged victorious and forced remaining Seminoles out of Florida and into the area west of the Mississippi River that became known as Indian Territory.
To sum it up, Andrew Jackson did many things to change the country including competing in the Corrupt Election of 1824, creating the Jacksonian democracy, and leading the Indian Removal Act.
Or at least that is what I did for my assignment on edge.
The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)<span> required (for the first time) that someone accused of a crime be </span>informed<span> of his or her constitutional rights prior to interrogation. This protected the rights of the accused, or the defendant, in two new ways: 1) It educated the person about relevant constitutional rights; and 2) It inhibited law enforcement officials from infringing those rights by applying the Exclusionary Rule to any testimony/incriminating statements the defendant made unless he intentionally waived his rights. </span>
<span>The Exclusionary Rule prohibits evidence or testimony obtained illegally or in violation of the constitution from being used against the defendant in court. </span>
<span>The </span>Miranda<span> ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for </span>Berghuis v. Thompkins,<span> 08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must </span>invoke<span> his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than </span>waive<span>it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation). </span>
congress has powers over lower federal courts in that it can define and redefine these courts mandates, and establish their jurisdiction or reexamine it. These powers are provided to congress by the constitution specifically in the exempting clause.
Answer:
Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare that acts of the other branches of government are unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable. For example if Congress were to pass a law banning newspapers from printing information about certain political matters, courts would have the authority to rule that this law violates the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional. State courts also have the power to strike down their own state’s laws based on the state or federal constitutions.
Today, we take judicial review for granted. In fact, it is one of the main characteristics of government in the United States. On an almost daily basis, court decisions come down from around the country striking down state and federal rules as being unconstitutional. Some of the topics of these laws in recent times include same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, gun restrictions, government surveillance programs and restrictions on abortion.
Other countries have also gotten in on the concept of judicial review. A Romanian court recently ruled that a law granting immunity to lawmakers and banning certain types of speech against public officials was unconstitutional. Greek courts have ruled that certain wage cuts for public employees are unconstitutional. The legal system of the European Union specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is also afforded to the courts of Canada, Japan, India and other countries. Clearly, the world trend is in favor of giving courts the power to review the acts of the other branches of government.
However, it was not always so. In fact, the idea that the courts have the power to strike down laws duly passed by the legislature is not much older than is the United States. In the civil law system, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. In the (British) common law system, on which American law is based, judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. However, as Britain has no Constitution, the principle that a court could strike down a law as being unconstitutional was not relevant in Britain. Moreover, even to this day, Britain has an attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy. Therefore, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down legislation.
Explanation:
nationalparalegal.edu /JudicialReview.aspx
