Ok...Expanding the Judiciary and White House Privacy.....Are these privliges given to the president in the constituion? What does the constitution say about these?!?!?! PLEASE HELP ME!!! this is very urgent! please be serious about it too...thank you so much for all of the help. it is greatly appriciated!
2007-10-04 14:50:06 · 7 answers · asked by Izzy 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Expanding the Judiciary ? You mean adding Supreme court justices ? FDR tried that and failed. As for the Judiciary and White House Executive priviledge...the 2 branches of government are separate, except when the Supreme Court is required by the Constitution to decide if an Executive Order is constitutional. The Judiciary has certain hoops they have to jump thru to get to see any White House/ Presidentiol papers or info.
However, it is law that the President has the right to privacy as far as memos, email, and other forms of documentation of governing as long as it is not part of a criminal act{s} by the Administration, and part of an official criminal investigation by the Justice Department.
The US constitution clearly separates the 3 branches of government, no matter what any of them THINK they are entitled to.
2007-10-04 15:01:14 · answer #1 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
there is nothing in the original constitution about the White House because it was not the formal president's residence until quite a few years later. As far as the judiciary, read the section on the Supreme Court and lesser courts. The President does have the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices with consent of the Senate, and their terms are for life.
2007-10-04 15:00:49 · answer #2 · answered by Mike 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Huhh? The Constitution is actually very limited in what the president is allowed to do. Congress, however, has forgotten this and yielded much of their power to the Prez.
Research Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Mayberry vs. Madison (which defined the Supreme Court as the only branch that can determine Constitutionality of laws).
**********
What Avatar forgets is that the Constitution is a living breathing document. Intended to allow interpretation based on the needs of the country at the time a law is needed/passed. It isn't illegal, IT'S NECESSARY!
***********
Good answer, Buck.
**********
Foxy, you are the weakest link. Good Bye!
2007-10-04 15:01:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The constitution states that the government has only those powers granted it by the people. If not in the constitution, is not legal. These things were written in a way that did not leave them open to wide interpretations. Our founding fathers wrote the constitution and also wrote papers stating what each and every part of it were intended to accomplish. Our leaders and supreme court judges have broad and easy access to these documents and yet still insist on loosely interpreting or flat out changing the intended meaning of the constitution. It is criminal, period.
2007-10-04 14:58:56 · answer #4 · answered by avatar2068 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The shape is a residing checklist that adjustments to mirror American ideals and lifestyle. "Sticking to the form" is complicated whilst the unique checklist grew to become into intentionally left obscure in many aspects, expressly to enable cutting-part interpretations to override older ones. there is likewise the reality that if we save on with the form as written and ratified in 1789, African-human beings could in elementary terms be 3/5ths of a man or woman, human beings could in elementary terms be allowed to vote for State Representatives (not rules, propositions, presidents, governors, etc.), states could desire to be sued via foreign places entities, slavery could be criminal, etc. Obama grew to become right into a Constitutional student, and has never spoken or acted to abolish it in choose of Islam or Socialism. component of the reason that the Tea social gathering does not have extra help from knowledgeable human beings is wild assumptions/accusations like the islam/socialism allegation. extremely than conceal in the back of a meant set of ideological concepts, perhaps you're able to easily be trouble-free with your self and others and merely brazenly convey which you do in comparison to his politics and/or dermis coloration with none actuality-based justification different than xenophobia and paranoia.
2016-11-07 07:22:16 · answer #5 · answered by slayden 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You might need to ask , someone who works for a libary
There is nothing medioned in the consititun about it . In fact, there is mendion of freedom-of the people. freedom for the people.freedom of speach .The constituion, was-is for -All- the people . No one has more rights than anougther person .
2007-10-04 15:07:21 · answer #6 · answered by foxxy lady 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To change any law in the judicial system and the legislative system there has to two thirds vote by the senators
2007-10-04 15:01:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋