By applying old principles to new situations. Vague terms from the original laws allow for different interpretations to be applied to new situations.
By applying old principles to new situations. Vague terms from the original laws allow for different interpretations to be applied to new situations.
At what point in history? The US Supreme Court has changed its stance on labor laws and workplace protection a number of times.
Our creators of the constitution were very smart and knew that things would change in the future so they built in a method of change into the constitution. This process is the amendments to add, change, or correct problems in the constitution. Added to this is the Supreme Court who uses the constitution to decide cases and to add to law or change law. For instance, the 4th amendment doesn't specify what " search and seizure " is, so court cases before the Supreme Court have been used to define what it is and how states are to use it to prove guilt.
Both Congress and the President have the ability to check the power of the Supreme Court, but Congress exerts more influence than the President:Legislative branch checks on Supreme CourtSenate approves federal judges, including Supreme Court justices (Advise and Consent Clause)Impeachment power (House)Trial of impeachments (Senate)Power to initiate constitutional amendments (to undo supreme court decisions)Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme CourtPower to set jurisdiction of courts (they can tell a court that they can not hear a case on a certain topic, which includes changing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court)Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court (if the size is drastically increased the President may select all the new justices and change the sway of power)Executive branch checks on Supreme CourtNominates justices to the Supreme CourtPower of pardon (except impeached officials)(Informal power to neglect enforcement of Supreme Court decisions. This is not supposed to occur in theory, but has happened a number of times in fact.)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
The chief justice of the supreme court administers the oath in normal times.
Yes, presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices who were not judges many times. The Constitution gives no qualifications for Supreme Court judges, so the President can nominate anyone he wants. Today, nominating judges is the norm, but that was not so in the past.
The President submits his choice to be a Supreme Court Justice for approval to the Congress. If the Congress does not vote for approval, (and there have been times when they voted against the President's choices), the person does not become a Supreme Court Justice and the President has to select someone else and have that person voted for by the Congress.
I think there are 9 people 2 woman and 7 men.
Congress has changed the size of the Supreme Court several times during the history of the United States, sometimes adjusting the number of seats to accommodate heavier or lighter caseloads in response to the addition of States or legislation increasing the number of federal courts over which the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. On several occasions, Congress has used this authority to reduce the size of the Court as a check on the power of the President, to prevent him from filling a vacancy or potential vacancy. For more information, see Related Questions, below.
The Constitution didn't actually create any courts, but required Congress to establish the US Supreme Court, per Article III, Section I. Although this is the only court explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Framers also authorized Congress to establish other, inferior courts.Congress established the US Supreme Court in the Judiciary Act of 1789.Article III:"Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."
I'm pretty sure it has never been called that by anyone who was smarter than a box of rocks.
new york times VS united states