In which case did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the Florida Supreme Court's plan for recounting ballots violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

U.S. Supreme Court Landmark Cases

TEKS US History High School - H.21.A: Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

AICE U.S. History EOC Review: Significant Supreme Court Cases

Describe the structure and powers of the executive branch of the U.S. government. Executive Structure: Chief Executive: President -- needs a majority (270 votes) of the electoral vote to win -- if no majority -- goes to House of Reps (each state’s reps collectively get one vote for President: V.P. decided by Senate (each Senator getting one vote); 4 year term; can only be re-elected once (22nd Amendment); must be at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen of the United States and resident for 14 years President’s Cabinet -- his formal advisors made up of the heads of executive departments (over a dozen departments today) (i.e. State Department (Secretary of State), Justice Department (Attorney General), Department of Defense (Secretary of Defense), Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, Department of the Interior, Department of Labor, Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development) Executive Powers: Enforces the laws Can issue executive orders Can veto proposed legislation Acts as commander in chief of military With the consent of the Senate -- makes treaties with other nations Nominates ambassadors and Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges (confirmed by the United States Senate) Can grant pardons to people convicted of violating federal (national) laws How can a U.S. President be removed? If commits certain crimes related to their duties -- House of Representatives can vote to impeach the president (to impeach = to formally accuse the president of the crimes specified in the Constitution) -- only three so far -- Donald Trump (2020), Bill Clinton (1998), and Andrew Johnson (1868); Nixon resigned before could be impeached (1974) If the House of Reps votes to impeach, the Senate puts the president on trial, with the senators serving as the jury. -- If found guilty, the president is removed.

Consists of federal courts and judges Constitution gives Congress the power to create inferior (lower) courts to meet the nation’s needs -- two main types: District courts -- most cases involving federal laws are first heard in district courts -- U.S. divided into large geographic districts (which covers several states) Appellate courts -- courts that review cases that have been appealed from a lower court -- only considers whether the original trial was fair and legal -- their decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court Supreme Court -- the highest court in the land (Congress has set the number of justices at nine, and they usually serve for life). Judicial Powers: To protect the Constitution Federal courts have the power to resolve disputes that involve national laws, the federal government, or the states. -- can also try people accused of breaking national laws Dispute only goes directly to Supreme Court if it involves a state or an ambassador from another country; otherwise has to come from a trial and then an appeal in lower courts -- could come eventually from national or state courts -- usually only review cases if they think a decision from a lower court might conflict with the Constitution or a federal law Supreme Court -- has the power of judicial review -- the power of the Supreme Court to decide whether laws and acts made by the legislative and executive branches are unconstitutional

Dred Scott was born enslaved in Virginia in 1799. In 1833, he was purchased by Dr. John Emerson, an army surgeon, living in Missouri. At the time, the U.S. was divided into free states (where slavery was outlawed) and slave states (where slavery was allowed). The Missouri Compromise of 1820 made Missouri a slave state. But it also outlawed slavery in any territory north of it. In 1833, Dr. Emerson was assigned to a fort in Illinois, and later, a fort in the Wisconsin Territory. He took Dred Scott with him. They lived in these areas for years. Even though slavery was outlawed in both places, Emerson never freed Scott. Eventually, Scott was sent back to Missouri to live with Emerson’s wife, Eliza Sanford*. After the doctor died in 1843, Scott tried to buy his freedom. Sanford refused. With the support of his church, abolitionists, and friends, Scott sued to get it. His case ended up going all the way to the Supreme Court. The Arguments Scott sued using two Missouri laws. One said any person held in wrongful enslavement could sue for their freedom. The other stated any person taken to a free territory was automatically free, and could not be re-enslaved. Sanford argued that the Missouri laws applied only to someone moving to free areas by choice. Dr. Emerson was ordered by the army to move to his posts. Sanford also said that military authority was greater than the states’. And since they lived on military bases, Emerson did not have to follow state or territory laws. The Decision In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled that Dred Scott was not free. Chief Justice Roger Taney stated that all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were not U.S. citizens. They did not have rights, like the power to vote or sue in court, so Scott’s case was invalid. But Taney did not stop there. He added that, because enslaved people were property, the Fifth Amendment protected the rights of enslavers. The Fifth Amendment says the government can’t take someone’s property without going through the courts or paying for it. Laws that banned slavery, like the Missouri Compromise, were unconstitutional. No level of government, Taney said, state or federal, could outlaw slavery.

Make a quiz about the important US supreme court cases

Fed. 51: To the People of the State of New York: TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention. In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them. It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department? If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test. There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE. PUBLIUS.

Related quizzes

Related quizzes