Please answer this following question.....thankyou!?

Question

The United States is one of the few countries in which the highest court of the land has the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Do you believe that such a power is of benefit to a country? Explain your answer.

Answer 1

YES it is a benefit
the US is one of the few countries that has 3 equal but different branches of federal government, they each have very specific responsibilities. the fact that all 3 have been known to overstep their responsibilities does not mean that the system is not good, it just means it could be run much better. administrative and congressional branches overstep and often under step their responsibilities quite often but when the judiciary does it is much more of a concern. the judiciary must not involve itself except when appropriate and must hold the constitution above all.

Answer 2

as long as this isn't an answer to your history essay:
the United States has divided up our government into three branches. The highest court of the land or the supreme court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional which is their "check" on the legislative (and executive) branch. This power ensures that the balance of our government is maintained.
In history there have been instances in which one of the branches has gained a little too much power (see the judicial while Marshall was chief justice, the legislative under the 17th president and The executive under our current president) Ultimately, the balance is restored.
Without this crucial power the supreme court would have little power to check the other branches. The supreme court is comprised of the greatest contemporary legal minds of our nation and the re-evaluate the constitution every single day. There are few people who could be qualified to make the distinction between constitutional and unconstitutional, but someone has to do it. Otherwise, we would betray the original goals of our country because people could could ignore the rights and responsibilities bestowed in the constitution.

Answer 3

Yes I do think that it benefits the country. Our system of government has a system of checks and balances. The legislature makes the laws. The executive has to sign those laws into law. The Supreme Court has the power to rule a law either constitutional or unconstitutional. The legislature can amend the Constitution, thereby changing the law of the land. The executive can veto a law passed by Congress. the Congress can override the President's veto. Each branch of government has a check over another branch of government. In the end hopefully the rights of the citizens is maintained.

Answer 4

yes it benefits the country because some laws are unconstitutional and with the system of checks and balances the court could never have too much power. this separates the powers equally so yes it does benefit. also it benefits because it handles the more important cases, and these cases often change laws or opens peoples eyes to seeing things in a different way. if the court couldnt say some laws were unconstitutional we would still have that whole separate but equal thing and we all know it wasn't equal. this power should be in the courts hands because determining whether somethignis constitutional or not is basically they're job so it is best that this is left to them instead of going to different powers or authorities

Answer 5

Absolutely. Without a Supreme Court defending the Constitution, the Executive Branch of the Country- would make up its OWN interpretations of the Constitution, and run the Country any old way it pleased! A Constitution is designed for the benefit of the People- NOT for the Government or its leaders. And its protection- keeps alot of BAD LAWS from being put on those people.

Answer 6

yes, do you realize how many laws we would actually have if the court did not declare certain laws unconstitutional? Let's just say that racism would still be a law today if the supreme court did not declare the law that segregated schools are unconstitutional back in the 50's which helped to push with the civil rights movement in the 60's

Answer 7

no you cannot declare a law is unconstitutional unless it was amended in the court. as long as the country is concern for the benefit of declaring such law like grabbing a bigger agricultural land for the benefit of one person because the law said it then it is unconstitutional because the law is for the benefit of the people not for one person.

Answer 8

Yes. In a majority of a certain party in office and the a president, certain laws can get passed that arent right. But just because the majority is Republican or w/e doesnt mean it should be enforced. This way, the Executive Branch doesnt have too much power, it is the greatest benefit to America, the system of Checks and Balances. It is good too have someone watching the rulers. If you get my drift.

Answer 9

for some people it is almost perfect, for others it can be devastating and corrosive.

in the dred scot case, the court found black people could not be citizens of the united states. this decision has caused black serious pain and actual suffering since 1857, when this decision was handed down.

in the plessey vs. fergerson case, the supreme court found that the segregation and subjugation of black people was ok.

this decision has also caused continuing pain and suffering to black people.

to this day if a black and an asian applies for a job, the asian or recently arrived foreigner will get the job ahead of a citizen who happens to be black. ( the same is now starting to happen to white citizens).

the supreme court has corrected some of its decisions, however, these decisions were shocking at the time they were handed down, and continue to cause problems to this day.

unfortunately, the supreme court does not like to reverse its own decisions.

it was the law that people using unrefined cocaine would receive longer sentences than persons using refined cocaine. my thinking is that anyone using cocaine should pay a high price. it took the supreme 20 years to hand down a decision on cocaine. poor people use unrefined cocaine and rich folks use refined cocaine.

you might want to download and review these decisions.

Answer 10

Hopefully the high court uses their collective wisdom to determine the fate of a law, rather than their power. Elected officials (some of them crooked as a dogs hind leg) attempt to make laws. I thank God that we have an extremely knowledgeable group of people who have earned the right to try to keep the original documents and declareations of this great country in force. Of the people for the people!