1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Darina [25.2K]
2 years ago
5

Write an essay which answers the following question.

History
1 answer:
Nastasia [14]2 years ago
6 0

"See you in court!"

"You can't do that. I know my rights!"

"I'm going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court!"

These cliche words illustrate a fundamental American belief: residents of the United States have the right to seek redress through the legal system.

But how do courts safeguard citizens' rights?

How does a matter come to the Supreme Court in the first place? How are fundamental rights safeguarded? Where do folks turn when their liberties, rights, or equality are threatened? Is justice served?

Throughout history, the American people have sought justice through the courts. As a result, the judicial system is a pillar of democracy in the United States.

The president and the executive branch make recommendations and create policy, while Congress enact legislation. Judges, according to American values, make fair and smart choices that elected officials find difficult to make.

Members of Congress, state governors, and the president must be concerned about elections and popular sentiment at all times. As a result, they may lose sight of the importance of preserving American principles, and they may enact hasty or unfair measures.

The courts act as watchdogs for the other arms of government, guided by constitutional principles. Democracy might easily deviate from its intended path if the judicial system is not in place.

But, in practice, does the American legal system follow these ideals? There are several examples of innocent individuals being imprisoned and even convicts being executed for crimes they did not commit. There are many judicial critics. Some claim that the rich or well-connected are given preferential treatment in the courts.

Other judicial opponents point to statistics they say show racial and socioeconomic prejudice. A disproportionate amount of convicts, for example, are young, African American, and male.

Poor people's legal defense attorneys are frequently chastised for being inept or uncaring. Cases in both federal and state courts are sometimes held up for years, creating a farce of the "right to a prompt public trial" provided by Amendment VI Bill of right of the United States Constitution.

When it comes to appointing federal judges, Congress and the president frequently clash. Because Republicans oppose a Democratic president's selections (and vice versa), vacancies in the judiciary can last for months, if not years.

Despite these concerns, courts continue to be strong guardians of liberties.

Freedom of expression has been safeguarded, whether the speaker was a critic of unfair government policy or a flag burning.

Segregation of public facilities came to an end in part because courageous people brought their cases to court. Interpretations of religious freedom have prohibited involuntary school prayer, preserving the separation of church and state but raising concerns that the Judeo-Christian tradition on which the nation was built is gradually eroding.

Despite the fact that the wheels of justice typically turn slowly, judges' rulings are usually the ultimate word when it comes to interpreting core constitutional concepts. The American court system has played a significant role in defining and sustaining freedom, equality, and justice almost from its inception.

You might be interested in
What are 3 scenarios for delegative leadership
nekit [7.7K]

Answer:

1. Robert Noyce · 2. Andrew Mellon · 3. Warren Buffet 

3 0
1 year ago
When russia began expanding south towards the black sea it came into conflict with ______ witch tsar nicholasi refer to as the s
Margaret [11]
The answer is D. I'm 99% sure.
7 0
3 years ago
Which was a major purpose of the united states and it swartime allies and world war 2 summit conference held in yalta and potsda
MrRissso [65]
The purpose of the Yalta Conference (February 1945) was to discuss what Europe would look like after World War II. The conference involved the three largest allied powers during this time, including the US, Soviet Union, and Great Britain. This meeting revolved around getting Germany to surrender unconditionally as well as a plan for reorganizing territories and who would control them after the war.

The Potsdam Conference (July-August 1945) focused on punishing war criminals, land boundaries, reparations payments, and getting Japan to unconditionally surrender. Japans surrender would essentially end World War II.
5 0
2 years ago
Why were north american settlements often founded by joint stock companies?
Anettt [7]

because It took many people to share the high costs.



4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which groups would have likely agreed with Paine?
stepladder [879]

Answer:

The patriot party as well as some colonial leaders whom he peruaded to go againt British forces

Explanation:

5 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • What are some of Medusa quirks or flaws?
    7·2 answers
  • Before the Camp David Accords, Egypt was considered
    7·2 answers
  • Which group profited the most from the California Gold Rush?
    7·1 answer
  • How were early New Guineans different from Australia’s first people?
    15·2 answers
  • The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 prohibited _____.
    9·1 answer
  • What role did Rosa Parks play in the civil right movement?
    7·1 answer
  • If Congress passes a law that conflicts with the Constitution, which one should be followed?
    9·1 answer
  • What was guerilla warfare?
    13·1 answer
  • Who was the first king of Nepal.​
    14·1 answer
  • Why is it important to remember the holocaust?
    9·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!