...Peter Rodino Peter Rodino, a Democratic congressman from New Jersey from 1949 to 1989, rose to prominence as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, where he oversaw the impeachment hearings that led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. Peter Wallace Rodino was born Pelligrino Rodino Jr. in Newark, New Jersey on June 7, 1909. His parents were immigrants from Italy. He attended the University of Newark and earned a law degree at the Newark Law School, both are now part of Rutgers University. During World War II, he earned a Bronze Star for service in Italy and North Africa. After the war, Rodino was unsuccessful in his campaign for Congress in 1946 but, trying again in 1948, he won the seat. As a congressman, he was generally...
Words: 356 - Pages: 2
...Appointment and Lifetime Tenure of Judges Diminish the Rights of the People Since the United States Democracy was first established, legislators and constituents have asked the question, “Should judges be appointed or elected?” Many state legislatures have argued that judges should be elected by the people because they make decisions that directly affect the people. On the other hand, the United States Constitution states that all federal judges shall be appointed to the bench and have lifetime tenure so as to preserve judicial independence. Although this policy may sound admirable, this method frequently leads to allowing an unfair advantage in trying to manipulate the views of the Court and can also lead to unproductive judges. Judges...
Words: 1147 - Pages: 5
...House Judiciary Committee of the Constitutional Basis for Impeachment Speech by Barbra Jordan on Jul 25, 1974 Mr. Chairman: I join in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible. Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, “We, the people.” It is a very eloquent beginning. But when the document was completed on the seventeenth of September 1787 I was not included in that “We, the people.” I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been included in “We, the people.” Today, I am an inquisitor; I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution. …The subject of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men. That is what we are talking about. In other words, the jurisdiction comes from the abuse or violation of some public trust. It is wrong, I suggest, it is a...
Words: 1540 - Pages: 7
...constitution. The meaning of impeachment in Texas constitution, is the process by which legislative branch has authority to remove a sitting public official like Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of the General Land Office, the Senate shall try Comptroller and the Judges of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and District Court. It is stated in article 15 in the constitution. The impeachment and removal of public officer is done by the state house. In order for an official to be impeached, the Texas House of Representatives must bring articles of impeachment. If the house adopts articles of impeachment, the Texas state Senate must then sit as the court of impeachment. During the time of sitting, the Senators shall be on oath, or affirmation impartially to try the party impeached, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present. However, the maximum judgment in cases of impeachment shall extend only to removal from office and disqualified from holding and office of honor. But according to the law, the convicted party also subject to formal accusation, trial, and punishment. However, by this we can say that there is not a big difference in U.S. and Texas Constitution...
Words: 1903 - Pages: 8
...Nixon v. United States 506 U.S. 224 (1993) Facts Walter Nixon Jr., a U.S. District Court judge in Mississippi, was investigated for his involvement for trading an oil and gas deal with an entrepreneur in exchange for his intervention in the entrepreneur son’s indictment for drug trafficking. Nixon was brought before a grand jury and testified that he did not intervene with the son’s case. He later stood trial in federal court for committing perjury during his grand jury testimony and accepting an illegal gratuity. He was acquitted of the illegal gratuity change but convicted of two counts of perjury. The Judicial Conference of the United States recommended Nixon’s impeachment. The House voted to impeach. The Senate invoked Impeachment rule...
Words: 560 - Pages: 3
...Checks by the Executive on the Legislature -Recommends Legislation – does this in the State of the union Address in January each year, outlining and focusing on key issues and policy areas, laying out his legislative agenda. The president does this in front of Congress, cabinet member, the Supreme Court and on television. George W. Bush in 2002 focused on the ‘war on terrorism’ and budget priorities. -Veto Legislation –George W. Bush used the regular veto on 11 occasions during his 8 years in office. One was the veto of the State Children’s Heath Insurance Programme (S-CHIP) 2007. President Truman used the veto over many major bills like the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Checks by the Executive on the Judiciary -Appointment of judges – he nominates all federal judges, with Supreme Court being most important, George W. Bush was able to make two appointments – John Roberts as Chief Justice 2005 and Samuel Alito as an associate Justice in 2006. Presidents try and choose nominees whose judicial philosophy matches their own to mould the outlook of the Court. -Power of the pardon – to pardon those who have been prosecuted etc in court cases. President Ford pardoned predecessor Nixon for any crimes he committed during the Watergate Affair. President Clinton pardoned 140 people, including March Rich, a notorious tax fugitive. Checks by the legislature on the executive – 8 significant checks! -Congress can amend, block or reject legislation recommended by President. In 2001 it significantly...
Words: 693 - Pages: 3
...The House of Representatives and Senate have distinct jobs. It breaks on the Executive Impeachment power by the House or Representatives and the Senate will take the trial of impeachments. Yet, it also has Checks on the Judiciary Branch in which overall the Senate is granted the power to approve of federal judges as well as each bears the ability to begin constitutional amendments. Both the House of Representatives and Senate have the force to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court, the power to determine jurisdiction of tribunals and the power to change the size of the Supreme...
Words: 492 - Pages: 2
...Judges Our system of government is a system that relies on balance in order to prevent a concentration of power and is arguably the most powerful. With its ability to declare both executive and legislative actions unconstitutionally, the judicial branch has a lot of space in determining the final say on whether or not our country can or cannot do a particular thing. This power requires that the judicial branch has effective judges in order to work properly. All judges carry an enormous amount of responsibility. In criminal trials, they are responsible for making sure that the lawyers follow all of the rules of evidence, and ensure that defendants get every right that is afforded to them. They make sure that everything is fair and that the jury is given adequate information in order to decide the guilt or innocence of a party. In civil trials, the judges must decide hard cases by interpreting precedent and decide which policy would be best where the law is not exactly clear on a subject. Judges are responsible for many tasks within the courtroom. The most important responsibility of a judge is to take the oath of office and to uphold that oath. They must swear that they will do their best to ensure that all official duties within their capacity are successfully executed. Judges are somewhat like referees during trials as well as sentencing agents during criminal cases. Judges are also...
Words: 812 - Pages: 4
...U. S. Congressman, Alcee Hastings Alcee Lamar Hastings was appointed by former President Jimmy Carter and became the first African-American Federal Judge in the state of Florida. Currently, he is the U.S. Representative for Florida’s 23rd congressional district. Hastings has held this position since January 3, 1993. Prior to this position, Representative Hastings held the seat of Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida from November 2, 1979 until October 20, 1989. Representative Hastings just happens to be one of only eight federal officials in American history to be impeached and removed from office. Facts surrounding the Impeachment In 1983, Hastings was acquitted of conspiracy to solicit a $150,000 bribe. In 1989, while working as a Federal Judge, Alcee Hastings was found guilty of bribery and perjury and removed from office. However, in 1992 Hastings was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida. It was alleged that in 1985, Alcee Hastings improperly revelation of sensitive government information obtained through a federal wiretap. Third Chances A lawsuit has just been filed against Alcee Hastings (D-FL) by a former female employee is alleging that, over a period of two years, Hastings repeatedly made unwelcome sexual advances and crude comments towards her. The misconduct allegedly occurred while Hastings served as Chairman to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The former employee, Winsome...
Words: 1138 - Pages: 5
...thing. This power, however, requires that the judicial branch have effective judges for everything to work properly. Judges have immense responsibility. In criminal trials, they are responsible for making sure that the lawyers follow all of the rules of evidence, and insuring that defendants get every right afforded to them. They make sure that everything is fair, and that the jury is given adequate information to decide the factual guilt or innocence of a party. In civil trials, judges must decide hard cases. In other words, where the law is not exactly clear on a subject, and a novel case comes up, they have the responsibility of interpreting precedent and deciding, in some cases, what the best policy to adopt is. Judges are "bound" by precedent. In every case, the judge must write down his decision, explaining why he decided the way he did, and that decision is published in what are called reporters. These decisions become law. Then, when a similar case comes up, the judge must know the law that has been decided in previous cases, and must evaluate his or her case in light of those previous decisions. This is what is called "precedent." An effective judge will be guided by precedent. They will interpret those cases decided before the one at hand, and will decide what those precedents dictate. In cases where precedent does not dictate a ruling, an effective judge will look at what will result from different rulings, and pick the best possible...
Words: 797 - Pages: 4
...When creating Congress, the Founding Fathers of the United States set out the powers and limits of the House of Representatives and the Senate, making it a bi-cameral system with power shared between the two houses. The Senates role in this bi-cameral system of Congress is to: ratify Presidential appointments and foreign treaties and tries the impeachment of a President. Filibusters also happen in the Senate. The President has the right to nominate individuals into positions throughout the government. From judges, administrative positions and secretaries in a range of agencies. Article two, Section two of the US Constitution gave the Senate the right to give consent to every nomination, as well as suggesting other nominees for those positions and the final vote to accept or decline the nomination. A nominee only needs a simple majority of votes for the position. An example of the Senate confirming an appointment would be the replacement of Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Sanders in 2010. Sanders was replaced by Elena Kagen. The vote was 63 to 37, 58 being Democrats and 5 being Republicans. The Senate alone has the right to give consent and advise to the President for all National Treaties.; once signed by the President, a treaty has to go to the Senate (the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations). The Senate will then assess the benefits of the treaty to the US and then come to a vote. 67 votes or two thirds of the 100 Senators are needed for the President to then...
Words: 403 - Pages: 2
...What is 'Checks and Balances?' Checks and Balance is a procedure set in place to reduce mistakes or improper behavior. Checks and balances usually ensure that no one person or department has absolute control over decisions, and clearly defines the assigned duties. The existence of checks and balances within an organization prevents any one person or department from having too much power, and forces cooperation in completing tasks. We can also define Checks and Balances in a corporate organisation as below Internal control mechanism that guards against fraud and errors due to omission. In a system with checks and balances, the authority to make a decision, and the associated responsibility to verify its proper execution, is distributed among different departments. These department are kept logically and physically apart, and no one department can complete a transaction all on its own. For example, the purchasing department orders goods, the stores-department receives and compares them with the respective purchase orders, the quality assurance department inspects and verifies their quality, the accounts department verifies the invoice amount, and only then the comptroller authorizes the payment for the purchase. This process emphasizes interdependence without interference, and creates a data trail or paper trail for auditing. While we can define it in a Government parliament as Governmental Extension of the separation of powers doctrine, under which each branch of a...
Words: 645 - Pages: 3
...important organ of the separation of powers, and independence of the judiciary is essential in democratic countries. What is independence of the judiciary? Independence of the judiciary is basically separately from the legislative and executive branches . So, what is the level of independent judgment in democratic countries? We will talk about the American legal and judicial system in this article. American legal system was adopted in 1789; it governs according to the constitution of the United States. All the rules of the legal system are established in the constitution such as the operation of courts, assignment of judges, their salaries and duties etc. America consists of 50 provinces, and America's legal system was also determined in a manner that protects of independence of the all provinces. Firstly, let’s talk about the appointments and salaries of judges. Assignment is done by political institutions (the United...
Words: 2982 - Pages: 12
...Running head: WATERGATE 1 WATERGATE DEVRY UNIVERSITY ONLINE. OCTOBER 20, 2014 WATERGATE 2 INTRODUCTION Watergate is a word that will forever be connected to the 37th President, Richard Nixon. What started out as a botched robbery at the Democratic Reelection headquarters would later become know for bringing down the Presidency. The American public would be able to see and hear firsthand what actually occurred in the Whitehouse behind closed doors, because of the national media that it created and the broadcasting of the Watergate Senate Hearings. This would bring to light the illegal activity that occurred during this time affecting many and changing politics as they were known. This paper will discuss the events that lead up to the Senate hearings and the fall of an American President. The careers that were made and the ones destroyed. The outcome and how it affected the American public and the future of politics. WATERGATE 3 WATERGATE At a time when the American population was dealing with the devastation of the Vietnam War and the loss of many loved ones a robbery at the Watergate hotel hit the papers. Many people did not know or even care what this meant, but later it would be found to affect the entire nation. On June 17, 1972 five men broke into the Democratic Reelection headquarters that was located at the Watergate hotel in Washington, DC (Watergate Info, 2012). They were caught with more...
Words: 3084 - Pages: 13
...The Power of the Supreme Court Cannot be Justified in a Democracy (45) The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy. The ambiguity of the constitution means that there is much room for interpretation. Since interpreting the constitution is the role of the supreme court, the supreme court is often seen as a quasi legislative body. This is because through its interpretations, particularly those made by loose contructionists, the supreme court acts as an additional legislature. It's decisions can have the same effect as passing legislation. For example, the Grutter vs Bollinger decision (2008) involved the courts laying down a time frame for which affirmative action can be deemed necessary. This effectively acted as a piece of legislation even though it did not pass through Congress. This can be seen as being problematic and potentially damaging for a Democracy. Justices are unelected, they therefore lack legitimacy and should...
Words: 913 - Pages: 4
