The Supreme Court And Government By The People Essays - Free Essays

The Supreme Court And Government By The People Essays - Free Essays The Supreme Court And Government By The People Jason I. Explain the distinction between substance and process and the importance of the distinction for the issues discussed in this course. Over the past few yearsthe courtholding that henceforth, before it can be determined that you Are entitled to due process at all, and thus necessarily before it can be decided what process is due, you must show that what you have been deprived of amounts to a liberty interest or perhaps a property interest. (Ely, p.19) Just as a skilled magician will deliberately show his empty top hat to the audience right before he pulls a rabbit out by its ears, so was judicial review pulled out of thin air. Judicial review has opened the floodgates of substantive procedures in the courts, which refer to content based decisions made by judges, as a tool employed in matters of judicial review and has become the dominant means of legislating in areas which would not otherwise be open to legal re-interpretation. In essence substance refers to the ability and right of judges to employ their own values in rendering decisions concerning a case at hand or in the past, reflecting a non-interpretivist approach to legislating. Such decisions are grounded in the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (a doctrine created by Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case itself derived from the Fifth amendment), which ostensibly provides citizens protection from the state governments. Substance also refers to moral ity and decisions based on natural law as opposed to positivism. Process is at the heart of democracy because it reflects the legitimate method by which a community can enact laws in a system of representative democracy; to that end, the principal virtue of a process oriented political system is its independence of concurrent political, moral, or societal pressures. These issues are obviously paramount in studying social reform and the role of the courts (judges) as legislators or guardians of correct legislative practice. #2 Explain Elys account of prejudice and the role it plays in his theory of judicial review. So stereotypes, at least in the ordinary sense of that term, are the inevitable stuff of legislation.(Ely, p.156) Ely describes prejudice as a lens distorting reality, that blinds us to overlapping interests which in fact exist. In reference to the treatment of minorities and blacks in particular, prejudice in the legislative levels of government is the basis of laws which put a minority group without adequate, if any representation or voice at a disadvantage without reference to some worthy social goal and at the judicial level implies a consensus of solicitude among the judiciary toward such discrete and insular groups within society. The other type of prejudice involves suspicious classifications, or stereotypes that may disadvantage groups but still is within the boundaries of democracy; this type of classification is considered harmful by Ely when we consider the presence of undue stereotypes that are discovered in previous acts of legislation. Ely asserts a more interperetivist approach although he concedes the practical implausibility of such an approach because of the inability of the co nstitution to forsee all possible situations. In the final analysis, Ely thinks in a representative democracy laws should agree with those values which are fundamental in the constitution (and surrounding historical documents) and which obligates, without undue discrimination obligates all to obey, despite a plurality of perspectives. Finally, Ely offers up that because matters of racial, sexual, moral and other prejudices are essentially primae facia in terms of what constitutes discrimination, a process-based model for the Supreme Court would be optimal, the only difficult being hard cases. #3 Explain Dworkins critique of Elys theory. In qny case, judicial review of the political processes only polices democracy; it does not seek to override it as judicial review of substance doesMy point in this essay is that both ways end in failure, and in the same sort of failure. (Dworkin, p.34) Dworkin called Elys Democracy and Distrust interesting and he obviously saw some merit in Elys claims; however, Dworkin analyzed Elys four main assertions and accepted only the first (that judicial review should be concerned with process legislation rather than the substantive decisions made by judges). Dworkin disagreed with Ely on his second point,

Franchthi Cave on the Mediterranean Sea

Franchthi Cave on the Mediterranean Sea Franchthi Cave is a very large cave, overlooking what is now a small inlet off the Aegean Sea in the southeastern Argolid region of Greece, near the modern town of Koiladha. The cave is the epitome of every archaeologists dreama site constantly occupied for thousands of years, with wonderful preservation of bones and seeds throughout. First occupied during the early Upper Paleolithic sometime between 37,000 and 30,000 years ago, Franchthi Cave was the site of human occupation, pretty much consistently up until about the final Neolithic Period about 3000 BC. Franchthi Cave and the Early Upper Paleolithic Franchthis deposits measured over 11 meters (36 feet) in thickness. The oldest layers (Stratum P-R in two trenches) belong to the Upper Paleolithic. A recent reanalysis and new dates on the oldest three levels was reported in the journal Antiquity in late 2011. Stratum R (40-150 cm thick), lower part is Aurignacian, upper part Gravettian, 28,000-37,000 cal BPStratum Q (5-9 cm), volcanic tephra representing ash from the Campanian Ignimbrite, Aurignacian lithic materials, rabbit and cat bones, 33,400-40,300 cal BP-Stratum P (1.5-2 meters thick), undistinguished lithic industry, poorly-preserved mammal bone, 34,000-41,000 cal BP The Campanian Ignimbrite (CI Event) is a volcanic tephra thought to have occurred from an eruption in the Phlegraean Fields of Italy which occurred ~39,000-40,000 years before the present (cal BP). Noted in many Aurignacian sites across Europe, notably at Kostenki. Shells of Dentalium spp, Cyclope neritea and Homolopoma sanguineum were were recovered from all three UP levels; some appear to be perforated. Calibrated dates on the shell (with consideration for the marine effect) are in roughly the correct chronostratigraphic sequence but vary between ca 28,440-43,700 years before the present (cal BP). See Douka et al for additional information. Significance of Franchthi Cave There are many reasons why Franchthi Cave is an important site; three of them are the length and period of occupation, the quality of preservation of the seed and bone assemblages, and the fact that it was excavated in modern times. Length and period of occupation. The site was occupied, more or less continuously, for about 25,000 years, during which time came the invention of agriculture and pastoralism. What that means is that changes that were wrought by these phenomenal leaps in human understanding can be traced at one place, by examining differences between different layers. Quality of preservation. In most of the layers excavated at Franchthi cave, remnants of animals and plants in the form of bone, shell, seed, and pollen were preserved. These kinds of artifacts have provided researchers with a wealth of information concerning diet and the course of domestication. Modern excavation techniques. Franchthi cave was excavated in the late 1960s and early 1970s, by the Universities of Indiana and Pennsylvania and the American School in Classical Studies at Athens. These researchers paid attention to stratigraphic layers, and kept much of the faunal and floral materials that would have been ignored or thrown aw ay in earlier times. Franchthi Cave was excavated under the direction of T.W. Jacobsen of Indiana University, between 1967 and 1979. Investigations since then have concentrated on the millions of artifacts recovered during the excavations. Sources This glossary entry is a part of the About.com guide to Upper Paleolithic, and the Dictionary of Archaeology. Deith MR, and Shackleton JC. 1988. The contribution of shells to site interpretation: Approaches to shell material from Franchthi Cave. In: Bintlinff JL, Davidson DA, and Grant EG, editors. Conceptual Issues in Environmental Archaeology. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. p 49-58. Douka K, Perles C, Valladas H, Vanhaeren M, and Hedges REM. 2011. Franchthi Cave revisited: the age of the Aurignacian in south-eastern Europe. Antiquity 85(330):1131-1150. Jacobsen T. 1981. Franchthi Cave and the beginnings of settled village life in Greece. Hesperia 50:1-16. Shackleton JC. 1988. Marine molluscan remains from Franchthi Cave. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Shackleton JC, and van Andel TH. 1986. Prehistoric shore environments, shellfish availability, and shellfish gathering at Franchthi, Greece. Geoarchaeology 1(2):127-143. Stiner MC, and Munro ND. 2011. On the evolution of diet and landscape during the Upper Paleolithic through Mesolithic at Franchthi Cave (Peloponnese, Greece). Journal of Human Evolution 60(5):618-636.