Know The Following: Be Very Familiar With The US Constitutio

Know The Followingbe Very Familiar With the Us Constitutionchecks And

Know the following: Be very familiar with the US Constitution Checks and balances main. Docx handout from which we have been working Know the slides for seven big ideas Know the sources of UK law as set out in Chapter 2 of your book The presentations given by your class mates for extra marks Be familiar with all the cases we have discussed in class including but not limited to: Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Obergefell v Hodges Zenger v the Crown Texas v Johnson Marbury v Madison R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland ([2019] UKSC 41) R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Hustler Magazine v. Falwell New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Paper For Above instruction

The United States Constitution is the foundational legal document that establishes the framework of the federal government and delineates the fundamental rights of its citizens. Its principle of checks and balances ensures that no one branch of government becomes too powerful, providing a system of mutual oversight among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches (Schmidt & Brown, 2018). Understanding this system is crucial for comprehending the structure and function of American governance. This paper explores the core principles of the U.S. Constitution, examines the doctrine of checks and balances, compares U.S. constitutional ideas with the sources of law in the United Kingdom, and analyzes significant legal cases that exemplify these principles in practice.

The U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1788, introduces a system where power is divided among three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial. This division prevents any single branch from becoming dominant, fostering a balanced governance structure. The Constitution enshrines individual rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and due process, which are protected through amendments and judicial interpretation (Amar, 2012). The principle of checks and balances is embodied in mechanisms like veto power, judicial review, and legislative oversight, which collectively maintain an equilibrium of power. For instance, judicial review, established by Marbury v. Madison (1803), allows courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, reinforcing the judiciary’s role as a check on the other branches.

In comparison, the UK’s legal system derives its authority primarily from statutes enacted by Parliament, which is sovereign and can create or amend laws as needed (Latham & Nalborczyk, 2020). Unlike the U.S., where a written Constitution explicitly limits government powers, the UK’s unwritten constitution is based on statutes, common law, conventions, and treaties. The UK legal sources include primary legislation (Acts of Parliament), common law cases, and constitutional conventions, which collectively guide governmental operations. This difference exemplifies the contrast between codified constitutional protections in the U.S. and the more flexible, evolving UK legal system.

In examining landmark cases, several rulings highlight the judicial role in defending constitutional principles. For example, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, empowering courts to declare laws unconstitutional. The case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) reinforced the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, requiring that public officials prove actual malice to win defamation suits. The Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, affirming equal protection principles. Cases like Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump addressed free speech rights on social media platforms, confirming that government officials must respect constitutional protections even in digital spaces. These cases demonstrate the judiciary’s vital role in maintaining constitutional order and safeguarding individual rights.

Other significant cases, such as Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), established the rights of detainees under the Due Process Clause, while R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister (2019) clarified parliamentary sovereignty and executive power in the context of Brexit. The Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) highlighted tensions between religious freedoms and anti-discrimination laws. These landmark rulings collectively exemplify how judicial interpretation and constitutional principles shape contemporary governance and civil rights debates.

In conclusion, understanding the U.S. Constitution’s structure and the doctrine of checks and balances provides essential insights into American governance. The comparison with UK law underscores differences in constitutional design and legal authority. Landmark cases serve as pivotal examples of judicial influence in maintaining constitutional principles, ensuring democratic accountability, and protecting individual rights. A thorough grasp of these legal frameworks empowers citizens and policymakers to navigate and uphold constitutional values effectively.

References

• Amar, A. R. (2012). The Constitution and America's Rise to Power. Harvard University Press.
• Latham, S. & Nalborczyk, M. (2020). The British Constitution: An Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Schmidt, R. & Brown, T. (2018). American Government and Politics. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
• Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
• Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019).
• Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).
• R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister, [2019] UKSC 41.
• Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018).