Category: Constitution

The constitution of the US is the absolute law of the nation, which acts as a guide to the political culture of the Americans and the law. They are many issues that have been addressed in the constitution of the US, some have been amended a number of times to fit the needs of the society.

Abortion is a good example of an issue that has been addressed in the constitution; it has also been amended a number of times. Under the constitution, the president has a number of privileges, which will be discussed in this paper. The constitution plays a significant role of creating a balance on most pressing issues and making sure that America remains a democratic state.

Presidents enumerated powers. In the US, the president has special powers, which have been formalized. The authorities of any president of the US are carefully limited and have been well outlined in the constitution of the US. The president has the power to appoint executives, federal juries, and American ambassadors among other officers of the government.

This power is also referred as the enumerated power of a president. Using the enumerated powers, the president of the US can negotiate treaties with other governments and can even recognize ambassadors from other countries. He or she can also veto bills that are passed in the assembly. As such, the enumerated powers are special authorities, which are exercised by a sitting president and are well-outlined in the constitution.

Special powers available to the president: The American president has several powers: these powers include those that are granted by the constitution, by the Acts of Congress, and other soft powers given to the President as the leader of the nation.

Emergency powers. Emergency powers are categorized into two groups. The two groups of powers are (a) a special power to act during the time of crisis, which is fully based on the presidents decision and (b) the special power to act according to the constitution or formal laws when an emergency has been announced in the nation.

Executive powers. In the executive branch, the president has been allowed by the constitution to manage a wide range of national affairs. Therefore, the president issues rules and instructions, which have a certain force although they never require approval by the congress. An excellent example of executive powers of a president in the US is using the veto on a certain bill that the he (president) does not approve.

Inherent powers. In the constitution, there are certain statements that can allow the president to have power. A statement like &.the executive power shall be vested in a president&. allows a national leader to practice some form of authority. Regulating immigration, acquiring a territory, and ordering deportation of some individuals are examples of inherent powers by the US president.

Is exercise of these powers a positive or negative influence? The president of the US exercises enumerated powers for the good of the citizens and the nation at large. During an emergency, for instance, there is a need to make quick decisions in order to address the situation. However, the congress can take long to make, and implement such decisions and it is, therefore, a positive aspect that the president should make decisions during such critical moments.

Does the president have too much power? In the recent times, the citizens of the US (some of them) feel that the president has become too powerful. Some people argue that the president has so much power that the democratic system is under threat. However, this is not entirely true.

The powers of any American president are set by the constitution and, therefore, the president cannot exercise his powers outside what has been allowed by the constitution. The constitution also prevents the president from using his privileges wrongly. This means that the president cannot breach the rights of the constitution and those of the American citizens. The president does not have too much power.

Differences between judicial activism and judicial restraint: The judicial activism and judicial restraints are antagonistic; the two terms are quite different from each other (. They are both relevant in the US as they relate to the American judicial system. These two are very significant in checking and controlling the powers of the government; they help check fraudulence.

The term judicial activism refers to how the constitution is interpreted in order to campaign for certain values and conditions in a nation. On the other hand, the term judicial restraint refers to the act of limiting the powers of federal judges so that they cannot strike down certain laws in national affairs. In issues of judicial activism, the federal juries are supposed to utilize their powers to correct injustices in the social system only when the other constitutional bodies are in-active.

Therefore, the judicial activism plays a significant role in creating and developing social policies on matters of political injustice, civil liberties and public morality. On the other hand, in the judicial restraint, the court allows the congress and state legislatures to continue with their duties, but can hold them back if they are violating the laws and constitution of the US.

The judicial restraint and judicial activism are also different in that they have different objectives. The judicial restraint creates a balance in the judicial, executive, and legislative issues while the judicial activism give powers to all arms of the government to overrule certain acts in the constitution.

Weakness and strengths of judicial activism. Some of the key benefits of judicial activism are: (a) to promote democracy by following what is only outlined in the constitution, (b) the judicial activism allows judges to stand firm on certain decisions because the constitution obligates them to do so, and lastly, (c) the judicial activism allows courts to supervise and implement laws, which is part of the democracy. The weakness of the activism is that its reliability is questionable and, therefore, it should be analyzed.

Weakness and strengths of judicial restraints. One of the benefits of judicial restraints is that it allows judges to exercise their authority; this is a form of democracy. This particular right allows the juries to defend the constitution as much as possible. It also allows federal judges to decline to make a ruling on some of the controversial matters. This, however, is usually considered a violation of the constitution, which is a major weakness of the judicial restraint.

The preferred method. The preferred method is judicial activism because it promotes democracy and allows the judges to make and implement decisions as well as standing firm on their rulings.

History of abortion law and its current status in America. Abortion is very common in the society, and it is estimated that almost half the population of American women have at one time terminated a pregnancy voluntarily. History about abortion reveals that during the 1800s, abortion was legal in the US, but towards the end of the 19^th century, the abortion act was amended and abortion was criminalized by the constitution.

The constitution banned all forms abortions after the fourth month of pregnancy. Regardless, the number of illegal abortions was relatively high but when the Comstock law was implemented, the number of illegal abortions declined at an alarming rate. During this period, some feminists (including Susan Antony) were strongly against abortion and their work helped in the war against abortion.

In the year 1965, the US banned all forms of abortion but this ban varied from one to state to another. Even though, abortion was only allowed under specific conditions which include (a) to save the mothers life, (b) in case the pregnancy was as a result of rape, (c) if the fetus had some complications or abnormalities like deformity.

In the year 1973, the Supreme Court said that all the laws on abortion were unconstitutional and it, therefore, allowed abortion within the first three months. Some celebrated this ruling while others including the Catholic Church opposed it. This led to wars and bombing of clinics that exercised abortion. Today, the conflict about abortion revolves around over termination of fetus at the late stages of pregnancy. Supporters argue that such an abortion is good because it saves the mothers life.

On the other hand, opponents argue that in a majority of the abortions, the fetus can be saved and people only abort as an excuse that the health of the mother is at risk. Presently, abortion is legal in more than fifty states in the US. The issue of mothers health, which allows the mother to abort even at the late stages of a pregnancy, is a broad one, and it does not have a single answer. As a result, there is no particular reason why a mother cannot abort.

Do you agree with the present status of abortion law? The issue of abortion has brought controversy in the US today. Abortion has become a critical issue in the society with many abortions been done every day. I feel that some people abort voluntarily although they argue that the health of the mother is at risk. This continues to victimize innocent and vulnerable fetus, and the law does not protect them. Therefore, there is a need define and to develop new laws regarding abortion. I do not agree with the current law on abortion.

Conclusion

The president of the US has some form of special powers, which allow him to make important decisions during critical moments. The special powers of a president are granted by the constitution, by the Acts of Congress, and other soft powers. Such decisions are applicable during times of emergency.

The term judicial activism refers to how the constitution is interpreted in order to advocate for certain values and conditions (in the US) while judicial restraint refers to the act of limiting the power of federal judges so that they cannot strike down certain laws, which are outlined by the constitution. The major benefit of these two is that they promote democracy in the US.

The issue of abortion has been (and still is) a burning issue in the society today. Presently, in more than fifty states abortion is allowed by the constitution. There is a need to develop laws regarding abortion to avoid the controversy surrounding this topic.

The foundations in American government were discussed in the first week by giving a critical look at the meaning and content of political science. In terms of definition, political science is the study of governance systems in society. It is a division of knowledge that explores ideologies and structures used by governing structures across the world.

The American constitution is also a critical component of American government.^[1] The constitution is used as the supreme law of the land since all other statutes operate below it. The same constitution has undergone several amendments especially through federalism. In order to support this reading, we also watched the video entitled ethos. This video media largely focuses on various aspects of governance that hinder the full implementation of democratic ideals.

In addition, the video attempts to give a clear picture of how our individual liberties as well as the environment can also be negatively affected by factors that work against democracy.^[2] From the readings, it is evident that the corporate power lacks regulation while the countrys politics has suffered conflicts of interests. This essay underscores the distorted democratic ideals that have culminated into warfare and over-consumption.

During week two, we explored federalism which captured chapters 3 to 5.^[3] Under this theme, we discussed the systematic development of American constitution, the federalist no.10 on faction and also the centinel no. 10 on responsibility. From the chronology section, we noted that the adoption of the articles of confederation took place way back on 1^st March 1781.

This was followed by the Annapolis convention five years later.^[4] A lot of other amendments have taken place in this constitutional document until the present date. The Federalist no.10 focused on the protection against the local faction and insurrection for the residents of New York State.^[5] Finally, the centinel was a 1787 document that was directed towards the Freemen of Pennsylvania.^[6]

It is evident that in spite of the myriads of changes that have taken place in the US constitution, the current state of democracy is still wanting and as such, the political system still demands urgent reformation.^[7] This assertion has been supported by the evidence presented in the video.

For example, there are still powerful political elites who have extremely distorted corporate leadership for the sake of their own interests.^[8] Secondly, when the chronology of the US constitution is keenly followed, it is found out that the more changes are made on the document, the more the constitution remains the same.

For instance, under the Federalist #51, Massachusetts carried out a ratification of its constitution while amendments were proposed on the same document after one day. This was a common occurrence across other states such as Maryland, Connecticut and Georgia. This implies that in spite of the constitutional changes that have been undertaken up todate, the positive impacts are yet to be fully realized.^[9]

Conclusion

In summing up, the centinel was against all the federalist ideals that had been put forward by the US constitution. The centinel noted that from this investigation into the organization of this government, it appears that it is devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people&^[10]

This implies that most of the gains that had been made towards constitutional development were brought down by several opposition fronts. Moreover, the American constitution and various phases of federalism have remained clear proofs that the foundations of American democracy have been influenced by several other factors

Bibliography

Centinel. Web.

Chronology. Web.

Ethos. Web.

Federalism. Web.

Miller, Lisa. The Invisible Black Victim: How American Federalism Perpetuates Racial Inequality in Criminal Justice Miller Invisible Black Victim. Law & Society Review 44, no. 3 (2010): 805-842.

Prochaska, Frank. The View from Albion: Bagehot and the American Constitution. History Today 60, no. 2 (2010): 35-41.

The Federalist No. 10. Web.

U.S. Constitution. Web.

Footnotes

1. U.S. Constitution
2. Ethos
3. Federalism
4. Chronology
5. The Federalist No. 10
6. Centinel
7. Frank Prochaska, The View from Albion: Bagehot and the American Constitution, History Today 60, no. 2 (2010): 39.
8. Ethos
9. Lisa Miller, The Invisible Black Victim: How American Federalism Perpetuates Racial Inequality in Criminal Justice Miller Invisible Black Victim, Law & Society Review 44, no. 3/4 (2010): 834.
10. Centinel

The president is the supreme power in nearly all the countries across the world. Only a few countries like Swaziland and the United Kingdom among others vest their supreme powers in kings/queens. The constitution of the United States of America confers diplomatic, executive, and administrative powers among others to the president.

IN my opinion, although the constitution of the United States bestows sovereign roles in the president, he/she must not rule within the constitution only; however, he should be monitored by the Senate, Congress, citizens, civil society, and other humanitarian groups. Therefore, the presidential powers are not powerful because of the establishment of the systems to check and indirectly control the presidents official duties.

My opinion in presidential powers is that although the constitution bestows the pivotal state duties in him, s/he cannot execute the duties without consent from the senate/congress house, therefore, limiting his powers. The senate has the powers to decline or give consent to presidential appointees through ballot boxes, and only a minimum of two-thirds votes will give the president the go ahead to implement his powers.

The establishment of the senate, congress, electoral system, and limitation of the presidential term to four years is some of the systems that control presidential powers. Furthermore, incase the president commits crimes or does not rule amicably, the house of representatives is free to charge him thus stripping him off the honor as the president. Therefore, the ability of the power checking systems, working parallel with the president, renders him/her powerless.

Article II of the constitution of the United States of American confers the president with four main executive official duties (Phelps & Lehman, 2005, p.112). The first role is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

The president of the United States of America has the power to declare war against any nation; he executes foreign policy leads the military and is free to call on military support anytime the need arises to ensure there is safety in his country (Lowi, 1985, p.20). On the contrary, the president has to work hand in hand with the congress in matters concerning foreign policy.

The second duty is the principal powers to execute all laws and bills passed by Congress. Nevertheless, the congress has the powers to resist or vote against the presidential decision during the signing of the bills/laws. Before the publication of any law, the president must approve it. The constitution grants the president immunity to implement the laws devoid of facing criminal charges or civil suit.

Thirdly, the president plays the role of the chief or principal diplomat. The constitution allows him to appoint all the ambassadors, sign treaties, or agreements with other nations and interact with other presidents and leaders. Apart from executive agreements, all the other international agreements have to seek approval from the senate, which may vote either for or against before declaring the treaty valid.

The executive agreements may occur secretly without the consent of the senate. Finally, the president plays the role of the chief principal administrator in all state duties. He has the powers to appoint the judges of the Supreme Court, ambassadors, and members of the executive branch. Similarly, the president has to work with senate to implement the aforementioned role.

In addition, the constitution allows the president to pardon criminals serving a jail term always referred to as presidential pardon. Unfortunately, the ability to pardon state offenders renders the judicial and the senate powerless because they do not interfere with it. Thus, the president is unable to implement the executive duties, which the constitution bestowed in him without consulting the senate/congress.

The constitution of the United States of America has established presidential checking systems, which monitors and approves presidential powers. The Electoral College, the limited presidential term, the impeachment law and the presence of the senate/congress closely work with the president (Phelps & Lehman, 2005, p.113).

Although, the role of the systems is to hinder the president from turning into a dictator, the presidential lacks federal powers. Indirectly, through democracy the citizens elect their representatives who subsequently elect the president.

In addition, the limitation of the presidential term to four years also ensures citizens practice their democratic rights while the impeachment law checks the personality and moral conduct of the president. Finally, the presence of senate/congress/house of representatives monitors the presidential powers, which has led to a tussle between the two branches especially concerning the implementation of foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2001 (Krent, 2005, p.70).

Although the president is the chief army officer, the senate/house of representative, give orders to the military officers leading to a tussle in the two branches. The aforementioned systems and checks/separation of powers have failed in balancing the federal government of the United States of America.

For instance, the ability of the presidential to pardon state offenders (amnesty) seems to be offensive to the judiciary, which both the president and the senate appoint. The accountability to the senate is the main section in the constitution that has led to disagreements between the two groups.

In summary, the constitution of the US offers the president supreme powers, but the senate, either approves or monitors all his/her duties closely. Thus, the presence of the system and checks section in the law limits presidential principal roles rendering him

References

Krent, H. K. (2005). Presidential Powers. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Lowi, T. (1985). The Personal President. Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Phelps, S., & Lehman, J. (2005). Constitution of the United States. Wests Encyclopedia of American Law, 8, 110-115.

The American constitution is supreme to other laws in the country; with this notion, public administration must follow the demand of the constitution. The constitution should be the overall law that governs issues and management of public institutions; in some instances, the constitution may have some bureaucracy that hinders efficiency among public administrators however it is normative that the administrators understand the requirements of the law and follow them.

In some cases, the constitution is seen to offer some stuck guidelines that are only needed to be followed for the general good of the law. Some scholars have argued that some of the demand made under the constitution lead to designs of inefficiency among public institutions.

Among public administration causes, there have been debates and recommendations that the rule of law should be taught; this is to facilitate knowledge among them and ensure when they are taking the oath of office, they understand what they are committing themselves to. In general the oath mandates them to uphold the rule of law and act ethically for the general good of the entire society (Rorh, 1982).

Ethics and Comparative Administration

Public servants of U.S. bureaucracy system are expected to uphold high degrees of ethics when working and performing their tasks; the general belief is that the constitution has some frameworks that can be used as the pillars of ethical code of conducts. The constitution should protect moral aspects of human being respecting ones fundamental rights and freedom.

According to the article, democracy has an effect on bureaucratic ethics, there is need to have freedom of choice and expression. Although the bureaucratic ethics notion, the system of operation that administrators should adopt should respect the rule of law and ensure that they perform their duties diligently, professionally, with the heart and the interests of the larger majority in their heart.

I agree with the argument that democratic governance is the foundation of bureaucratic ethics; this is so because when the ruling class adopts effective systems of governance, the policies they make will be ethical and for the general good of the society.

For example, the police are expected to ensure justice prevails in the society; they should have effective systems of administration. For instance, when a crime has been committed that calls for the use of public funds, police should not use the amounts selectively, they should have the same policy.

According to my belief, the society can attain high levels of bureaucratic ethics however there is need to have a central body that controls the flow and direction that behavior among administration officials follow. In the case that there is conflict of issues, the administrating central body should prevail. In a nations administration, democracy backed with the constitution stands a better chance to maintain bureaucratic ethics (Rorh, 2007).

Conclusion

In the administration of social policy, public officials should uphold professionalism, integrity, and ethical behavior. For uniformity, governments need to enact policies that reinforce the rule of law and administration of justice; the constitution is supreme thus it should have guidelines to governance frameworks that support ethical behavior among citizens.

Constitution as a course in tertiary education should not be limited to administrators but should be a common course in all professions; this will facilitate administration of justice and respect of fundamental rights freedoms.

References

Rorh, J. (1982). The Constitution in Public Administration: A Report on Education. American Review of Public Administration, 16(4), 429-440.

Rorh, J. (2007). Ethics and Comparative Administration: A Constitutional Commentary. American Review of Public Administration, 10(1), 65-74.

Why is the Bill of Rights important today? What would happen without it? The essay on the importance of Bill of Rights essay below will answer all of your questions about the issue!

Introduction

Various countries have adopted different systems of government that are suitable for them. A legitimate government is one that has the legal power to rule the nation. A government becomes popular if it is supported by most of the citizens. The constitution is one of the major documents that provide the frame work within which the government operates. This fundamental document defines the relationship between the citizens and the government. It also defines the powers that the government has and how it should exercise them.

The constitution is normally broken down it various categories each having a set of provisions. The bill of rights is one of the basic provisions of a given constitution and it spells out the rights and freedoms of all the citizens of a given nation.

The inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the constitution has been a controversial issue and some people contend that it is not necessary in a situation where we have a legitimate government that has a popular support. In my view, the bill of rights is very necessary in any type of government because of the following reasons.

Arguments against the Bill of Rights

In the case of United States, the inclusion of the bill of rights was controversial and people who opposed it had the following arguments. First, they felt that they could elect various individuals to represent them in parliament and if they failed to be accountable to the citizens, they could be stripped off their leadership positions.

Secondly, the Bill of Rights was used by anti federalists, as a rallying point to argue in favor of the pre-constitutional status quo a confederation of independent states, operating under the glorified treaty that was the Articles of Confederation (Amar 123). They also thought that the process of drafting it could take a long time and it could interfere with the promulgation of the proposed law.

Thirdly, they contended that the bill of rights would give the impression that the federal government had unlimited powers. Fourthly, the bill rights could not be practical and it could simply be treated as a mission statement. They also thought that there were no mechanisms that could be used to force the legislature to stick on it.

It is on this basis that they dismissed it as volumes of aphorisms which would sound better in treaties of ethics than in a constitution of government (Levy 68). This argument remained popular until 1789 when Thomas Jefferson fought for the drafting of the bill. It was later adopted and recognized by the Supreme Court in 1803.

Arguments in favor of the Bill of Rights

The Bill Rights is an important aspect of the constitution and I therefore contend that it should be part of the constitution of any legitimate and popular government. I support it because of the following reasons. It enables the citizens to fully benefit from the government.

This is because it ensures that the government protects the welfare and rights of its citizens. The U.S. constitution has ten amendments and they are what we call the Bill of Rights. These rights also enable the citizens to have a fair trial in the courts hence, they cannot be tried unfairly. In addition to these, suspects can be freed on bail as they wait for their cases to be tried.

The lives of citizens is also protected by the bill, hence, the life of an individual cannot be taken by any body unless there are proper justifications for it. The bill of rights also guarantees the citizens the freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, of lawful assembly, and of appeal by petition (Levy 187).

This right can only be restricted in a case where it interferes with the rights of others. Citizens are also accorded the right be in possession of arms provided they do not misuse them. It also prevents unnecessary military occupation unless it is allowed by the law.

The United Nations also came up with Universal Human Rights. These Rights were formulated in order to preserve the dignity of human beings from any violation. It therefore enhances equality among people and this encourages peace in the world. Many conflicts that occur today in various countries are mainly because the rights of the citizens are not honored.

For example, the wave of revolution that has really spread a cross the Arab world is mainly because the governments in those countries do respect the citizens rights. Many believe that the protection of human rights is essential to the sustainable achievement of the three agreed global priorities of peace, development and democracy (Labunski 157). This protection can only be possible if there are legal provisions for it.

Apart from the bill of rights, the citizens rights can also be safeguarded through the following methods. The government through the judiciary ensures that citizens rights are protected by punishing those who violate them. Secondly, it also uses its security departments to ensure that all citizens are law abiding and do not infringe on the rights of other people. The French Revolution opened a new chapter in the life of French citizens.

During the conflict various scholars like Montesquieu, and Rousseau advocated for the three ideals to be honored by the government. These ideals were equality, liberty, and fraternity. By advocating for these ideals they were demanding for the protection of their rights which had been seriously abused by the despotic regime.

Bill of Rights Essay Conclusion

From the above discussion, we can therefore conclude that the Bill of Rights is very important even if the government is legitimate. The legitimacy of the government is not enough to make it committed in doing the right things that the citizens expect of it. For example, many governments often start ruling with a lot of popularity but they often lose bearing at some level. It is only the bill of rights that can keep the governments activities in check. Therefore, the Bill of Rights should be part of the constitution.

Works Cited

Amar, Akhil. The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction. New York: Yale University Press, 2000.

Labunski, Richard. James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Levy, Leonard. Origins of the Bill of Rights. New York: Yale University Press, 2001.

Introduction

The Articles of Confederation vs Constitution share commonalities, albeit with notable differences. Primarily, both documents were crafted by individuals who, despite their shared endeavor, held distinct perspectives. These foundational texts have long been regarded as the official government of the United States, enduring over an extended period as the guiding laws for the nation.

Similarities between Articles of Confederation and Constitution

There is a number of similarities between Articles of Confederation and Constitution. The nation is recognized as the United States of America in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Both documents delegate the authority to make laws to the legislature. However, a crucial distinction lies in the structure of the legislature: the Articles of Confederation establish a single house referred to as Congress, while the Constitution features two houses, collectively known as Congress but subdivided into the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Congress in the Articles of Confederation comprises members ranging from two to seven per state. In contrast, the Constitution stipulates two senators per state, contingent on each states population. The voting system in Congress diverges between the two documents: the Articles of Confederation dictate one vote per state, while the Constitution prescribes one vote per representative.

The process of appointing members differs as well. In the Constitution, representatives are elected through the popular vote, whereas, in the Articles of Confederation, members are appointed by state legislatures. Another notable distinction is found in the terms of service for legislative officeholders. In the Constitution, representatives serve for two years, while senators serve for six years. Conversely, the Articles of Confederation mandate a one-year term for legislative officeholders, with a term limit not exceeding three out of six years.

These nuanced differences in legislative structure and processes illuminate the evolution from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.

Differences between Articles of Confederation and Constitution

The differences between Articles of Confederation and Constitution are as follows. The Articles of Confederation do not recognize any executive, while the Constitution acknowledges the president as the executive. Amendments to laws under the Articles of Confederation require the agreement of all states, whereas in the Constitution, it is achieved with the consent of three-quarters of all states.

Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution offers a nuanced understanding of the evolutionary strides made in governance. The Articles of Confederation served as a starting point in the journey toward a new constitution, marked by having more weaknesses than strengths. Notably, it exerted extra efforts to unite the states and establish a robust legislature.

Many valued this initiative, providing an opportunity for people to actively contribute to government actions. Within the Articles, colonists proposed the land ordinance as a means to create new states and address the national debt. However, a significant weakness lay in its failure to allocate powers to the federal government, rendering it insufficient.

The federal government under the Articles of Confederation lacked the authority to regulate commerce and taxes. In contrast, the Constitution introduced strengths such as empowering the government to tax, provisioning for a standing army, establishing a common currency, and appointing a common leader.

Conclusion

Above all, its main strength is that it has remained successful and unchanged up to date, serving as the source of rules and regulations for the United States. However strong the US Constitution is, it has some critics. This constitution has been regarded by many as undemocratic, particularly when compared in the context of the Articles of Confederation vs Constitution. It is considered to be undemocratic because of its idea of having indirect presidential elections and confusing senators elections. Finally, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as its strengths overdo its weaknesses, unlike the Articles which had more weaknesses than strengths.

The constitution is sheer genius in my opinion, almost divine. However, there is one core concept of the constitution that is wrong: its wrong due to the fact its based on concepts and practices of capitalism. The concept that Im arguing against is ambition counteracting ambition or evil counteracting evil, this concept is absurd, its like saying a lion guard another lion, or gravity counteracting gravity.

The truth of the matter is the one overwhelms the other, or even worse they both will combine and cause almost unending havoc. Now Im not arguing against the reasoning of this concept, when James Madison said, Men arent angels I perfectly agreed but we arent demons either. What Im arguing is the absurdity and the usage of this concept, since the people are not really represented.

James Madison being one of the Founding Fathers  succeeded in establishing the state of America and its society by working out the key principles implemented in the Constitution. That is why he was known as Father of the Constitution. In American society, people believe that the point of somebodys ambitions can make an impact on his future life.

It is concerned without the exclusion of the fact that many negative aspects are involved in terms of this approach to negatively illustrate the relationships between people in power and those being subordinate to this power. In this paper, the points about James Madisons concepts are concerned with one of John Lockes works in order to support the vision of the Constitution on the facts relevant to power in relationships between its branches. The Second Treatise by J. Locke is a manifestation of power that is present in nature and can be elaborated in society. This work explains the ways of peoples reorganization into civil society with strict glimpses on the rights which individuals have when meeting the repressions in it. One of the concepts being popular in the epoch of Enlightenment is outlined by the author. It is a social contract theory.

In other words, the author states several points as of the men and power. His state of nature is a unity of people equal in rights, but, as the author continues, each of the individuals can use the power coordinated by natural law.

This is because natural law is universal and knows no boundaries of state or country when being carried out. (Locke 11) Another point of Lockes work touches upon the fact that the society appeared after making some agreements between people intending the political power emergence. The role of state the author comprises in the work of governments, for in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions. (Locke 4) Though, the natural liberty of an individual is argued in the work so that to find out the truth in evaluating the concept of freedom in the state supported by the Constitution in our case.

Looking at the theories which were dominating in the civilized world of the seventeenth till nineteenth centuries historians distinguish a powerful flow of thoughts provided by outstanding people of that epoch, such as John Locke, as was mentioned above, Niccole Machiavelli, Adam Smith, and other philosophers who had greatly evaluated main ideas regarding the state formation and the concept of power in it. The Founding Fathers applied various key points in the treatises of contemporary and previous scientists. They worked out the role of the power separation, in particular. How did it impact the figures in weight of early America? What was the result of their finding outs?

James Madison was impressed and interested in the separation of power with emphasis on the wholeness of social regulations. One point, though, stays unclear when Madison applied to great compromises in regulations between three main parts of the power. Each of the spheres of influence should participate in mutual checking out according to Federalist Papers so that to prevent inactivity in corridors of power. In support of this idea, it was considered that if individuals gather to make a contribution to the things of personal needs then a total good is within easy reach in their communities.

Where is the extent of this very compromise observed in everyday life? When talking of relationships between, for instance, barber and his client wanting to be hair-cut it is necessary to adhere to the public health regulations in using the instruments and having the license given preliminarily to the barber by the government. This situation surely shows the fact of compromise in relationships within individuals and state authority. John Locke with regards to above-mentioned approach wrote the following statement:

Every man is born with a double right: first, a right of freedom to his person, which no other man has a power over, but the free disposal of it lies in himself; secondly, a right, before any other man, to inherit with his brethren his fathers goods. (Locke 107)

This common model of relationships also omits the fact of considered surveillance of the rest who belong to the lower layers of the society. Here the middle class is sure to be preferred. Why is the population of a definite country need equality in rights and doings adhered to the law? As Locke pointed out in his Treatise, where law ends, begins tyranny (Locke 135), but it calls a sort of grave contradiction to this approach because even now in one-man rule countries the laws are even more severe and effective than in present-day democratic countries and still it does regulate the political climate in a country.

In other words, tyranny not always falls into the hands of one man. There is a group of others to support their leaders ideas. Still, the controversy appears to the idea above. Since the moment when disputes about the democratic trends amongst civilians reached the highest point James Madison underlined in one contemporary newspaper of the eighteenth century the logical explanation of how evil-versus-evil model giving several points as for the concept of officials in the state:

From this view of the subject, it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. (Vile 559)

Here I can clearly figure out the theme of Machiavellis treatise The Prince where the features of indifference of the ruler should be made out and his role is too heightened to pay simple attention on those being subordinates to him. In fact, it is an autocratic model. Turning to Madison he thought that in theory of political frameworks there should not be perfect equality in their political rights (Vile 559), because it will lead to oversimplification of empowerment maintained by the authority and, as a result, lessens the role of the bodies of government.

In contrast, some peoples of Middle East, namely, Kuwait, Bahrain or United Arab Emirates have many of rights and material amenities and, thus, are equalized with regards to one another. Moreover, in these countries autocratic or even theocratic, like in Saudi Arabia, regimes are implemented without any harms for the economies and well-being of people on the whole.

Still let us turn to the times of the Founding Fathers. Great curiosity inspires the question of Thomas Jeffersons implication to antifederalists. It will be remembered that Jefferson assisted in Madisons attempts to make influence on Hamilton. Fluent phrases of Washington about equal and pure state with a high level of morality were further opposed by Madison who noted:

Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. (Ville 600)

So Madison accompanied with Jefferson saw the goal prescription of democratic society in Socrates saying Truth is sprout in discussion. Discussion in return is a manifestation of diversity in opinions. This intentions as well as Madisons and his associates inclinations presupposed a great number of the ideas, theories and experience of the eminent politics, philosophers and researchers on public affairs.

In return they created one of the most stable, unless saying the only, Constitution valid and efficient for more than two hundred years. Taking into account all the controversies rose in the US existence of that time it is obvious to mention that the natural principles of governing helped the Founding Fathers and James Madison in person to create a powerful law and infrastructural base with strict and clear delegation of authoritities outlined and performed in the Constitution.

Works cited

Goldie, Mark. John Locke Icon of Liberty: Mark Goldie Traces the Ways in Which People across the Political Spectrum Have Used and Abused the Ideas of the Philosopher Who Died 300 Years Ago This Month. History Today. 2004.

Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. Ed. Thomas P. Peardon. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960.

Vile, John R. The Constitutional Convention of 1787: a comprehensive encyclopedia of Americas founding. ABC-CLIO, 2005.

The central argument in the Medina constitution is the establishment and advancement of pluralism. Against the current Muslim ideologies that discourage pluralism, the Medina constitution is one of the evidences indicating that early Muslims were democratic and embraced pluralism. The pluralistic ideals are spelt out in almost every chapter in the Medina constitution.

The constitution of Medina outlines a series of agreements that were drawn up in the first three years after the Hirja to end the differences between the people of Yatrib and the Muhajirun. As a result, a number of rights as well responsibilities were drafted for the Jews and Muslims in Medina to bring them as Umma, a distinct community from the surrounding pagan society. The constitution instituted an Islamic state.

In addition, the constitution was also drafted to take into action the interests of the emigrants from Mecca spelling out their rights and bond that connects the emigrants with other communities in Medina. The Medinas constitution also established a free state that in effect was a pluralistic society including Muslims, Jews, and pagans.

The document is partitioned into two segments. The first part stipulates the mutual relations among Muslims while the second part addresses the rules that control inter-communal concerns between the Muslims and the Jews. The Medinas constitution opens by establishing one community consisting of the emigrants from Mecca and the native Muslims.

The agreement states that the Muslims of Yatrib together with their followers as well as those who labored with them are one community of believers known as the Umma. The provisions assert that the Umma are to make war as one. The believers shall not leave anyone needy among them by failing to disburse his liberation money in a show of kindness. Further, believers are to seek revenge if any Muslim is killed fighting in the way of God.

However, if a Muslim kills a fellow Muslim, then the customary laws of revenge keep on functioning. Moreover, the constitution asserts that believers shall be in opposition to any person who seeks to spread hatred, corruption as well as prejudice among the believers. In other words, any one practicing the vices should be considered a non-believer. Besides, the rules apply to the believers only. The constitution also emphasizes on the equal handling of all Muslims with value and decorum.

The charter disbands the divisions between the inhabitants and the emigrant Muslims thereby presenting principles of equity and fairness to all Muslims irrespective or their origin of birth, tribe or ethnic background. In addition, the constitution does not condone the inhabitants to acquire the status of superiority over the immigrants. On the other hand, the immigrants are not supposed to be considered more important. The constitution also recognizes that the Jews who follow Muslims are not to be mistaken nor shall his foes be helped to carry out an injustice to him.

The indivisibility of unbelievers is emphasized in the constitution. As such, when the believers are struggling in the way of God, the establishment stresses on a single peace made by all believers ensuring justice and equity to all. Moreover, when believers disagree on an issue, the charter stipulates that it have to be submitted to God and Muhammad. In addition, the establishment provides for believers to revenge for the blood of one another shed in the way of God. The constitution further provides for the believers to hit back to whoever found guilty of murdering a believer devoid of any good reason.

The constitution further expands the range of the population that it governs. For instance, the charter asserts that the bond between the members of the Umma exceeds any relation or accords between them and the pagans. Furthermore, the charter recognizes the various religious, cultural, ethnic and linguistic attributes of the Jews just as it recognizes the similar multiplicity within the Muslim fraternity. As such, the constitution acknowledges the principles of equity and fairness amongst all the tribes of the Jews.

The charter goes further to eliminate the notion that some Jewish tribes are better placed. The acknowledgement shows that the constitution embraces equality and self-respect among all the Jews. In addition, the medina constitution contributes immensely in the establishment of a pluralistic society where Medina is not considered as a Muslim society but a community consisting of people of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Further, the constitution grants the liberty of faith by stating that the Muslims have their own religious convictions and the Jews have their own faith. In addition, the Jews are expected to fight along their Muslim brothers but covering their own cost. The Medina charter also recognizes that at times of war, the Muslims pay for their own expenses and the Jews bear their expenses as long as there is no betrayal. The charter asserts that Medina was to be haram for its people and Muhammad is its founding holy man.

The responsibilities of Muhammad range from arbitration of disputes to solving the problems of justice within the city as well as relations with outsiders. Further, Muhammad conducted an efficient fight back against Mecca to establish power within Medina. The Jews and the Muslims are not to go to war without the authorization of Muhammad. Through the establishment of a pluralistic state, the constitution acknowledges that Medina is not only a Muslim state but also includes the believers of other faiths. For instance, Medina comprised of the Muslims, the Jews and even pagans.

The charter also recognizes the importance of religious tolerance by leaving every believer to practice its own faith. The constitution recognizes Muhammad as a prophet of God having a divine connection with God in all sides of life. Given these complete assurance in the reality envisaged in Islam, the charter fails to institute a sanctimonious state that forces its citizens to embrace the faith of Islam. Further, the agreement establishes mutual coexistence between the Jews and the Muslims so that each community helps each other during attacks.

Through seeking of shared counsel as well as consultations and development of loyalty between the communities, there is a potential elimination of treachery. Clearly, it is observed that with the charter, the prophet was able to establish his authority in Medina, work out alliances with the neighboring tribes and as a result, carry out an effective struggle against Mecca. The consequent success was the eventual success of Medina.

Bibliography

Kennedy, Hugh. The Prophet and the age of the Caliphates: the Islamic Near East from the sixth to the eleventh century. London: Pearson/Longman, 2004.

Introduction

Debates regarding the interpretation of the constitution have been present for decades and up to date, a unified conclusion remains to be realized. While the grammatical and ideological agreement may be unanimous, there is disagreement in the event of interpretation of the same.

Different scholars and politicians come up with varied interpretations which are guided by the theories they follow or their own personal beliefs. In the end, there has to be an interpretation of the constitution for it to become a governing law. This means interpretation whether good or bad has to be established with the majority carrying the day.

The American constitution, which is one of the worlds oldest, has been subjected to many amendments over the years due to ideological differences from one generation to the next. The feeling of the need for a change in governance in pursuit for a better mode of leadership system has been the driving force for this. This paper will set out to analyze a number of articles which discuss various aspects of the American constitution. The paper will discuss the differing opinions and offer my opinion on the matter of the US constitution.

Overview of the Constitution

The American constitution is arguably the most liberal and complex in the entire world. It differs with the rest of the western constitutions both in its length and the biblical influence. It finds most of its inspiration from the bible since majority of American citizens are Christians. Consequently, its interpretation has been revolving around the unbalanced religious divide.

The debate on the right of individuals to own fire arms prompted by Martin Luther king, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedys assassinations were a major challenge with regards to interpretation of the constitution. In the second amendment of the constitution as pointed out by Hannan seems to offer a window for the formation of militia groups (4). This is however seen as a self-centered sentiment coined to manipulate the constitution to favor self interest.

In the constitution a lot of individual rights are mentioned and seem to be the top agenda in the composition of its text. The need to respect the original meaning and intention for every law therein is therefore vital. Amendments without considering the originality of the constitution have been the major cause of wrong and misguided interpretation of the law.

The interpretation of the constitution should not be left to the politically influenced judiciary. The high court should not form the highest authority on constitution interpretation rather this should be left to the people. These are national guiding and governance terms and should not be decided by an individual or a group of elite individuals rather should be an all inclusive activity in the best interest of the public.

Social Aspects in the Constitution

Prudently, it is a high level of ignorance to assume that the constitution is the unquestionable supreme power over the people. It also, like many other writings and principles, has a number of limitations with regards to its implementation. This is much evident on the sections that address social interactions. The interpretation of the constitution by different institution in the various fields attracts much attention and criticism.

It would be of much assistance to really trace back to the historical events that influenced the actual drive to come up with the constitution. A study carried out shows that a colossal percentage of the population in America is in the dark with regards to the contents of the constitution. Many do not even have the basic knowledge on law regarding human rights. This however is not blamed on the uninformed citizens but lies squarely in the leadership and the governance of the country.

Holding some practices as illegal on one hand infringes into the right of self acceptance and freedom of choice. However, allowing the same practices like same sex marriages undermine human dignity as far as sexuality and religious teachings are concerned. This calls for the original meaning of the constitution if this kind of duplicity is to be brought to rest. The urgency of this matter is proved by the vote out of office judges who supported gay marriages (Hannan 6).

The only way to find true justice in the current system of governance can only be influenced by the original intention and adherence to the spirit of the constitution. Liberal legal scholars have tried different approaches in countering this argument (Hannan 5). Hannan points out that democratic legitimacy is the measure of a sound constitutional interpretive practice (5).

Explaining a principle without an understanding of the same can be quit difficult, hence interpretation is the first priority in the road to understanding the true meaning of the constitutional clauses. With this in mind then it becomes easier to come to an agreeable and contented conclusion. One that can have a majority backing from the public domain and not one that seems like a government project forced down the publics throat. This is an assurance of a democratic form of governance that is of the people by the people and for the people.

Political Aspects in the Constitution

The constitution is a document and a set of laws to govern a nation in managing and guarding its political integrity and economic recourses for the benefit of all. The political elite therefore are charged with the responsibility of being the custodians of the perfect will of the people. The contents of the constitution represent the will of the citizens in general and should be guarded in integrity and in respect of the peoples dignity.

This not withstanding, the people trusted with the custody of this document turn around and abuse the powers vested in them. The elite have turned against the same people who have trusted them with the power to oversee the implementation of the rule of the land. In his book The New Road to Serfdom, Hannan asserts that no one familiar with the affairs of our government, can have failed to notice how large a proportion of our statesmen appear never to have read the constitution of the united.

Bad governance that lacks the interest of the electorates at heart is a major set back in the realization of the American dream. Realizing the long-term goal of the constitution goes beyond self-seeking political parties and political alienation for selfish gain. It is the reason of fulfilling the spirit of the constitution that should be the main cause of seeking political responsibilities as it is the sole duty of political leaders.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land and should be treated in due respect and only leaders with this kind of knowledge should be trusted with the responsibility to guard its integrity. Information is power and the elite know what implications this has, especially when the electorate knows their rights. This could possibly be the reason why the government is not keen to ensure the contents of the constitution are known to the public.

Under this misinformation the black people were taken advantage of and denied rights that they deserved by being citizens in the United States of America. Hannan says that the federal government was made by the white men for the benefit of the white me and their posterity forever (8). He goes on to point in his book that there is nothing in the United States constitution that gives the congress, the president or the supreme court the right to declare that white and colored students must attend the same school (8).

A sign in Boston reads where in the constitution is the separation of church and state? Legal education on the clauses of the constitution is paramount for the public to have it broken down by the legal experts on constitutional law. This is primarily due to the fact that the language used in its representation is not easy for the common citizen to understand. Hence, a simpler interpretation is required to have everyone onboard in the pursuit for the democracy.

This is the responsibilities of the government to inform the public and the citizens right to be informed. The government is doing very little to achieve this and it has been the trend throughout the subsequent governments. Time has come for the long awaited change of the status quo in response to respect of the rule of law.

Economical Aspects in the Constitution

Economical implications in response to political responsibility are enormous in such a time when the economy is experiencing difficulties in all directions. Political responsibility is key in ensuring a sound economic security and growth as well. Proper planning and innovative policies are what can save a crumpling nation economically.

The tragedy is with all the economic-sensitive provisions in the constitution, our government and political leaders are so busy pursuing their own personal gains at the expense of their constitutional responsibility. Economical Growth therefore seems like an unachievable milestone where else it is out of neglect in duty that the economy is subjected to this kind of set backs.

Corruption is a major disappointment and it greatly undermines the growth of an economy. The political elite are more than ever involved in corrupt dealings that rob our economy of the precious remittances that finance the public utilities. As Hannan puts it, part of the problem might appear to be the distance between our location and theirs. It would prove to be an unyielding endeavor to realize any significant economical steps ahead if the effort does not emanate from the leaders.

Our leaders are required by law to safeguard our sovereignty and our national resources. But that, all along, has not been the case as the same leaders are in a rush to grab as much wealth as they can from the public. Instead of working towards the benefit of all they are only concerned with their own selfish ambitions.

The constitution gives all the citizens in the United States of America equal chances and equal opportunity to benefit from the resources found in the country without any discriminatory procedures. But the elite have created their own discriminative procedures that deliberately sideline other citizens from the free benefit of being a citizen in the United States of America. This is brought about by the introduction of a new political order of threats false rumors and extremist rhetoric (Crain 11).

These turn of events in leadership has brought the obvious downplay of the rule of law as the leadership has been accused to be involved in the funding of insurgence. This is done blindly as a way of acquiring power but has proven to be a time bomb in waiting in the long-run.

This destabilizes the economy as corrupt and unlawful operations are given a blind eye as the insurgences work hand in hand with he custodians of the law. This in the long-run will cause a major break down in the economy and recovery may never be realized as fast as the breakdown happens.

Concerns

The common citizen is the main shareholder in the political arena yet he or she is the most neglected by the same people who promised to provide fair leadership. In the light of the constitution, the common citizen does not understand the complex use of legal terminologies. What is the government doing about this and what measures have they taken to ensure that the American citizen is well informed and that he or she understands the contents of the document.

Does the government take this issue as a priority to inform its public on the governing law and the protection abound in the constitution? Is it in their interest to have the public taught by legal experts about the interpretation of this law? The government must take it upon itself to ensure there is a legal explanation and original unbiased interpretation of the law for the good and benefit of the public who double-up as the governments employer.

The political elite must realize their responsibilities and be faithful to keep their end of the bargain. It is very disappointing to be let down by the same government that one has trusted to take good care of the nation. A country that lacks an economical future is a country in trouble and lacks security. Financial security in a country is vital as it influences many different avenues that attract economical growth.

Financial security is a sure way to attract investors in the country and this translate to social and economical benefits with other countries. This is an endeavor to any reasonable government that has its citizens welfare in mind. Formulating trade laws that favor economic growth should be in every governments consideration all through revising them more often to cease any upcoming advantage.

As ascertained by Crain, replacing the three pence duty on foreign molasses with a one penny duty was a relief to importers who would bribe at just about the same price (14). This brought to halt the loss of funds in the black market and eliminated smuggling. There has to be a significant link between the politically elite and the electorate. This is important if a mutual benefit is to be realized otherwise it will be just a matter of exploiting the electorate in the guise of unfulfilled promises.

Smuggling and illegal trade is a major hurt to the smooth running of the economy hence a threat to its growth as well. Governments involvement in the business industry is paramount for traders as the government has the power to cushion traders during harsh economic times. If traders are not protected they stand to loose a lot in their merchandise and may be unable to comeback to business after the tough times are gone.

Development in any country depends on the commercial stability in the country hence it must be in the interest of the government to protect its business community. This is done by creating amiable business environment for business to thrive. Nothing gives a country the sense of security like financial security does and the United States of America is not different. The leadership has to embrace the challenge and give its citizens the security they so yarn for.

The constitution is the pillar of a nation and must be regarded as so in dignity and the law therein upheld and obeyed to the latter. The constitution is clear that no individual or institution is above its grip. Upholding the constitution is a gesture of submission and respect to our countrys sovereignty (Brooks 24). The elite living in harmony with the spirit of the constitution is the guiding principle in the pursuit for democracy.

It all begins with a political drive to reinforce policies that with influence growth in the entire country. With such systems in place, growth is inevitable in a receptive population in terms of investments and business interactions. The elite are elected to oversee the development of the people and to reinforce the will of the people. If the will of the people is respected then the running of the countrys economic affairs is in good hands and one can only project growth.

Better information as noted by Lepore, is key for development and mutual understanding in the society. Should this virtue lack, then trouble strikes-in in a way we might find it difficult to handle the repercussions. In the United States of America every one longs for better economic and financial dawn (Lepore 25). But this has been like a dream as the efforts towards achieving this are halted by the policies in place and misrepresentation of the will of the people.

In the wake of these tough economic times it is vital to have proper policies in place to maximize on possible chances to better our national income. This can not happen with the current policies and misinterpretation of the constitution. Proper interpretation must be provided to the public and the judiciary must have it right in the courts form free and fair justice to be experienced.

Conclusion

The constitution is an important document since it provides the basis upon which the country is governed. It is the only document that equalizes the citizen in the United States of America. The spirit of the constitution and its original intention was for the good of the people. However, the will of the people have significantly been ignored and replaced with self driven ambitions by those in power and assumed custodians of the law (BBC 21).

This is unfortunate but can be corrected by casting of votes to responsible and trusted people who have the will of the people at heart always. These are the kind of leaders who can lead the country into better economical heights with dignity and respect to the original spirit of the constitution.

In my opinion, leadership is the main drive to any achievements; be it economical or even political. When good leadership structures are achieved development is automatic. At all times leaders must be on the forefront to champion developments and better management of resources for the benefit of all. This is the spirit of statesmanship and good will.

Works Cited

BBC. Us constitution read aloud in House of Representatives. 2011.

Brooks, David. The Wal-mart hippies. The New York Times. 2010. Web.

Crain, Caleb. Tea and Antipathy: Did principle or pragmatism start the American Revolution. New York: The New Yorker, 2010.

Hannan, Daniel. The new road to serfdom: The Tea Party Tradition. 2010. Web.

Lepore, Jill. The commandments: the constitution and its worshippers. New York: The New Yorker, 2011.Print.

The plural executive structure as practiced in Arizona is different from the national executive structure in that several officials, as opposed to one official, are in charge. In the national government, however, the president acts as the single elective head and is assisted by several appointed subordinates. Top on the list of the Arizona executive branch is the governor (Arizona State Legislature, n. d.). Then, we have the secretary of the state below the governor, followed by the attorney general. Below the attorney general is the treasurer, while the superintendent of public instruction is at the bottom of the ladder. The other two positions considered are a state mine inspector, as well as a commission made up of five people. The governor has the power to hire and fire departmental heads. In addition, the governor also influences the budget process of the state. This means that the governor also influences how the members of the state get access to public funds.

The minimal requirements for executive branch members are that they are not less than 25 years of age. In addition, the members must have been citizens of the United States for 10 years, five of which are as a resident of Arizona, the members (Arizona State Legislature, n. d.). I believe that the current qualifications for members of the plural executive in Arizona are sufficient because they facilitate the election of a candidate who has the best interest of the state at heart. Historically, the executive powers were broadly dispersed and even today, this perspective is still valid and useful. This is because corruption can be reduced by having multiple elected officials. For example, territorial officials are widely known for abusing power. In the case of a plural executive branch, the multiple elected officials are in a position to watch one another. Also, no single official wields a lot of power hence they are not likely to abuse power.

The state of Arizona has three levels of jurisdiction: the limited jurisdiction consists of municipal and state courts (Arizona State Legislature, n. d.). These courts are often termed as nonrecord, in that they do not require permanent records to facilitate court proceedings. Their jurisdiction is also limited to different cases. There is also the general jurisdiction. The Superior Court of Arizona falls under this level of jurisdiction. It maintains permanent records and handles different cases.

Finally, we have the state appellate courts. These courts reviews decisions and trials appealed to them.

In Arizona, counties with a population of above 250,000 often select the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judges through what is known as the merit selection process. First, judicial candidates are required to submit their applications to a commission made up of mainly public members (State Bar of Arizona, n. d.). The applications are reviewed by all commission members before deciding on the applicants that qualify to be interviewed. Before the actual interview, the applicants are investigated further. Once the interviews are done, the most qualified candidates are recommended to the governor by the commission, for each judicial appointment, their names are submitted to the governor, taking into account gender and ethnic diversity. Merit (the professional qualifications of the candidate) is the primary consideration. Out of the three recommended, only one is appointed by the governor (State Bar of Arizona, n. d.). Following their appointment, judges are often subjected to what is known as retention election, periodically. This means that voters have the final decision as to whether or not they are competent enough to keep their jobs. The Judicial Performance Review Commissions, along with the help of litigants, jurors, attorneys, and the court staff examine the performances of individual judges against the established judicial performance standards.

The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review

This body is charged with the responsibility of establishing performance standards for judges. In addition, the body also decides if a judge fulfills the established standards, before alerting the voters on the findings (JPR. (n. d.). To do so, the commission holds public hearings to get the views of individuals who are privy to what the job performance for judges entails. They also distribute written surveys. An independent data center then compiles the survey responses and the results are then sent to the Commission. The members of the commissions then decide which judge fulfills the judicial performance standards.

The Arizona Commissions on Judicial Conduct

As an independent agency, the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct examines complaints lodged against local and state judges regarding the violation of ethics and Code of Judicial Conduct Commissions on Judicial Conduct Overview. (2010). Its members include attorneys, judges, and public members.

References

Arizona State Legislature. (n. d..). Arizona Constitution. Web.

Commissions on Judicial Conduct Overview. (2010). Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct. Web.

JPR. (n. d.). Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review. Web.

State Bar of Arizona. (n. d.). Merit Selection. Web.