Unit 4 Judiciary

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/opinion/knepper-judicial-activism/index.html

 

President Obama and chorus of commentators, activists and politicians find that judicial activism is an issue. President Obama feared that U.S Supreme Court would rule and overturn his signature law the Affordable Care Act.  The article begins to explain the ‘big picture’ that the President and others are implying that judicial activism is an issue are ‘painting’ that judiciary branch are “one of an imperial judiciary routinely snatching important policy decisions out of the hands of elected representatives.” The article goes on to explaining why this is not true and not the issue. The first reason was that from 1954-2002 the Supreme Court ‘struck down’ two-third of one percent of passed laws by Congress taking down two federal laws per year. In conclusion judicial activism being an issue is ‘overblown’ and that judicial activism isn’t the problem. The real issue is “constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, and one that leads to ever-expanding government power.” An example the article used support this is the 11^th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals and noticing Congress going over there authority and explaining that "the Constitution requires judicial engagement, not judicial abdication." The article later concluded that Supreme Court striking down the Affordable Care Act won’t do much to affect balance of power.

I agree with idea that President Obama and other people going on with judicial activism issue are using as a substitute to avoid the thought if the legislative and executive actions are constitutional. My reasoning is there have been a lot of news about Congress and the president decisions throughout being president including the decision and dramatic/serious events going on between Congress and the President. And also in support for judicial activism is useful since the constitution sometimes doesn’t have the answers to solving social issues.

 

Video of President Obama talking about judicial activism in 2012

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=president+obama+and+judicial+activism+video&FORM=VIRE4&adlt=strict#view=detail&mid=0464B89D42E5648D1E370464B89D42E5648D1E37

 

Make a deal with Iran — and Congress

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/make-a-deal-with-iran--and-congress/2015/04/07/1c9c3622-dd49-11e4-acfe-cd057abefa9a_story.html

In the article Congress is working on making a law that will allow them to work with president on the Iran nuclear deal. The problem on making this law is that the Republican majority and democrat minority shows that the bill may be vetoed due to the number of Republicans both in the Senate and House. The bill that will give Congress some authority over foreign deals is called Corker Bill from the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate R. It has gone through many provisions. The original was Congress can approve or disapprove a deal with a foreign country and disapprove deal will be automatically blocked. The “new language” added to the bill is allowing a deal to go into effect for 60 days then vote yes or no decision. There are sanction laws that exist that the president can waive on his own but is unsustainable. A provisions of offensive of the administration could have been requiring to periodically checking Iran for support of terrorism against United States. Senator Bob Mendez loses role as ranking member of committee losing the provision.

I believe it is a good an idea to pass a law that would allow Congress to weigh-in foreign deals with the president. The 60 day in effect of a deal gives a president a chance to make a deal and not have Congress disapproving the deal after proposal. This article is a good example of a committee having a bill revised before making it to the both senate and house. The Senator Bob Mendez of the Foreign Relations Committee could have made the provision for the Obama administration but was unable to due to losing his role.