Marbury v. Madison and It's Effects on the United States Today Term Paper

Marbury v. Madison and It's Effects on the United States Today - Term Paper Example The rising power of Adams-appointed Marshall also pushed the judiciary into the political struggle between Federalists and Republicans and made the Marbury v. Madison a critical pawn in the government's political chess (Henderson, 2010, p.43). This paper summarizes the facts and decision in the Marbury v. Madison and explores the effects of its ruling on the United States today. It argues that the Marbury v. Madison emphasized the role of the independent judiciary, separation of the judiciary from political squabbles, and the importance of checks-and-balances in the American government. Marbury v. Madison: A summary As his term ended, President John Adams had made a number of federal appointments, including William Marbury, as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, in the process known as â€Å"midnight appointments.† Thomas Jefferson, the new president, noticed the pile of documents related to these appointments and refused to recognize them, including Marbury's ap pointment. The Secretary of State James Madison should have delivered these appointments, but he followed Jefferson and did not deliver Marbury's commission (Henderson, 2010, p.59). Marbury sued Madison, and the Supreme Court handled the case. ... The primary question is that: Could Congress, based on the 1789 law, broaden the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as indicated in Article III of the Constitution? Article III clearly stated that: â€Å"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to Law and Fact† (qtd. in Henderson, 2010, p.60). Marshall argued that according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, delivering these commissions for judges and justices was unconstitutional, since it provided higher authority to the Supreme Court, which infringed on Article III of the Constitution. The Congress did not have the authority to expand the powers of the Supreme Court. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and should not be followed. Since the law that prov ided authority to the Court in issuing writs of mandamus was void, the Court could not give a writ of mandamus and Marbury v. Madison had been dismissed. Effects of the Marbury v. Madison Independence of the Judiciary Marbury v. Madison asserted the role of an independent judiciary in having the â€Å"last word in law and the Constitution† (Sloan & McKean, 2009, p.49). Chief Justice Marshall established the Court's authority â€Å"to say what the law is† (Lively, 2000, p.392) and not have the executive and legislative power dictate how the law should be interpreted by the judiciary. This case is a landmark case, because it emphasizes the power of the judicial review in aligning laws with the Constitution. Marshall provided a â€Å"narrow† interpretation of the limits

Drugs in Saudi Arabia Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Drugs in Saudi Arabia - Research Paper Example In regards to this, drug use is a serious offense in Saudi Arabia; the penalty is death. Drug traffickers found guilty are sentenced to death. The Saudi Arabia monarchy rates as one of the places with the strictest regulations on drugs in the world. The kingdom has a zero-tolerance, strict anti-drug policy that is initiated at all the transport entry systems into the country with state-of-the-art technology for detection (US Department of State). The monarch lists some of the prescription medication as illegal, thus visitors or passengers carrying such must have proper prescription papers from their doctors. Interestingly, some of the medications in the over-the-counter category fall under the controlled substances in the Saudi Arabia Kingdom. Over the past few years, the kingdom has been emphasizing its prohibition of drugs and substances considered to be against the Koran teachings through the creation of more regulations and policy to control drugs. The airports in the kingdom conduct thorough passenger searches, even the transiting passengers. Those found with controlled substances and drugs are subjected to trials under the Islamic laws (US Department of State, 2011). The introduction of the death penalty for drug trafficking offenses was in March 1987 under King Fahd. The Council of Senior Ulama (religious scholars responsible for the interpretation of Islamic laws) had presented religious edict (fatwa) No. 138 that contained the penalty proposal. The edict was advocating for a death penalty for individuals found guilty of receiving or smuggling â€Å"drugs† into the kingdom, with the same penalty for recidivist distribution charges. The edict became law and took effect immediately. According to Amnesty Intern ational records, the first execution took place in July 1987, which saw the beheading of Falin bin Kami al-Makati.