Chief Justice of the United States
The Chief Justice of the United States is the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, as such the highest-ranking judge of the federal judiciary. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution grants plenary power to the President of the United States to nominate, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, appoint a chief justice, who serves until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire, or die; the chief justice has significant influence in the selection of cases for review, presides when oral arguments are held, leads the discussion of cases among the justices. Additionally, when the Court renders an opinion, the chief justice, if in the majority, chooses who writes the Court's opinion; when deciding a case, the chief justice's vote counts no more than that of any associate justice. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution designates the chief justice to preside during presidential impeachment trials in the Senate. While nowhere mandated, the presidential oath of office is administered by the Chief Justice.
Additionally, the chief justice serves as a spokesperson for the federal government's judicial branch and acts as a chief administrative officer for the federal courts. The Chief Justice presides over the Judicial Conference and, in that capacity, appoints the director and deputy director of the Administrative Office; the Chief Justice is an ex officio member of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution and, by custom, is elected chancellor of the board. Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, 17 people have served as chief justice; the first was John Jay. The current chief justice is John Roberts. John Rutledge, Edward Douglass White, Charles Evans Hughes, Harlan Fiske Stone, William Rehnquist served as associate justice prior to becoming chief justice; the United States Constitution does not explicitly establish an office of Chief Justice, but presupposes its existence with a single reference in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside."
Nothing more is said in the Constitution regarding the office. Article III, Section 1, which authorizes the establishment of the Supreme Court, refers to all members of the Court as "judges"; the Judiciary Act of 1789 created the distinctive titles of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1866, at the urging of Salmon P. Chase, Congress restyled the chief justice's title to the current Chief Justice of the United States; the first person whose Supreme Court commission contained the modified title was Melville Fuller in 1888. The associate justices' title was not altered in 1866, remains as created; the chief justice, like all federal judges, is nominated by the President and confirmed to office by the U. S. Senate. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that they "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior"; this language means that the appointments are for life, that, once in office, justices' tenure ends only when they die, resign, or are removed from office through the impeachment process.
Since 1789, 15 presidents have made a total of 22 official nominations to the position. The salary of the chief justice is set by Congress; the practice of appointing an individual to serve as chief justice is grounded in tradition. There is no specific constitutional prohibition against using another method to select the chief justice from among those justices properly appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court. Constitutional law scholar Todd Pettys has proposed that presidential appointment of chief justices should be done away with, replaced by a process that permits the Justices to select their own chief justice. Three incumbent associate justices have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate as chief justice: Edward Douglass White in 1910, Harlan Fiske Stone in 1941, William Rehnquist in 1986. A fourth, Abe Fortas, was not confirmed; as an associate justice does not have to resign his or her seat on the Court in order to be nominated as chief justice, Fortas remained an associate justice.
When associate justice William Cushing was nominated and confirmed as chief justice in January 1796, but declined the office, he too remained on the Court. Two former associate justices subsequently returned to service on the Court as chief justice. John Rutledge was the first. President Washington gave him a recess appointment in 1795. However, his subsequent nomination to the office was not confirmed by the Senate, he left office and the Court. In 1933, former associate justice Charles Evans Hughes was confirmed as chief justice. Additionally, in December 1800, former chief justice John Jay was nominated and confirmed to the position a second time, but declined it, opening the way for the appointment of John Marshall. Along with his general responsibilities as a member of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice has several unique duties to fulfill. Article I, section 3 of the U. S. Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice shall preside over impeachment trials of the President of the United States in the U.
S. Senate. Two Chief Justices, Salmon P. Chase and William Rehnquist, have presided over the trial in the Senate that follows an impeachment of the president – Chase in 1868 over the proceedings against President Andrew Johnson and Rehnquist in
Winfield Scott was an American military commander and political candidate. He served as a general in the United States Army from 1814 to 1861, taking part in the War of 1812, the Mexican–American War, the early stages of the American Civil War, various conflicts with Native Americans. Scott was the Whig Party's presidential nominee in the 1852 presidential election, but was defeated by Democrat Franklin Pierce, he was known as Old Fuss and Feathers for his insistence on proper military etiquette, as the Grand Old Man of the Army for his many years of service. Scott was born near Petersburg, Virginia in 1786. After training as a lawyer, he joined the army in 1808 as a captain of the light artillery. In the War of 1812, Scott served on the Canadian front, taking part in the Battle of Queenston Heights and the Battle of Fort George, he was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in early 1814, he served with distinction in the Battle of Chippawa, but was badly wounded in the subsequent Battle of Lundy's Lane.
After the conclusion of the war, Scott was assigned to command army forces in a district containing much of the Northeastern United States, he and his family made their home near New York City. During the 1830s, Scott negotiated an end to the Black Hawk War, took part in the Second Seminole War and the Creek War of 1836, presided over the removal of the Cherokee. Scott helped to avert war with Britain, defusing tensions arising from the Patriot War and the Aroostook War. In 1841, Scott became the Commanding General of the United States Army, beating out his rival, Edmund P. Gaines, for the position. After the outbreak of the Mexican–American War in 1846, Scott served as an administrator, but in 1847 he led a campaign against the Mexican capital of Mexico City. After capturing the port city of Veracruz, he defeated Mexican General Antonio López de Santa Anna's armies at the Battle of Cerro Gordo, the Battle of Contreras, the Battle of Churubusco and captured Mexico City, he maintained order in the Mexican capital and indirectly helped envoy Nicholas Trist negotiate the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which brought an end to the war.
Scott was a candidate for the Whig presidential nomination in 1840, 1844, 1848, he won the Whig presidential nomination at the 1852 Whig National Convention. The Whigs were badly divided over the Compromise of 1850, Pierce won a decisive victory over his former commander. Nonetheless, Scott remained popular among the public, in 1855 he received a brevet promotion to the rank of lieutenant general, becoming the first U. S. Army officer to hold that rank since George Washington. Despite being a Virginia native, Scott stayed loyal to the Union and served as an important adviser to President Abraham Lincoln during the opening stages of the Civil War, he developed a strategy known as the Anaconda Plan, but retired in late 1861 after Lincoln relied on General George B. McClellan for military advice and leadership. Scott's military talent was regarded by contemporaries, historians consider him to be one of the most accomplished generals in U. S. history. Winfield Scott was born on June 13, 1786, to Ann Mason and her husband, William Scott, a farmer, veteran of the American Revolutionary War, officer in the Dinwiddie County militia.
At the time, the Scott family resided at a plantation near Petersburg, Virginia. Ann Mason Scott was the daughter of Daniel Mason and Elizabeth Winfield, it was Ann's mother's maiden name that William and Ann Scott selected for their son. Scott's paternal grandfather, James Scott, had migrated from Scotland after the defeat of Charles Edward Stuart's forces in the Battle of Culloden. Scott's father died. Although Scott's family held considerable wealth, most of the family fortune went to his older brother, James. In 1805, Scott began attending the College of William and Mary, but he soon left in order to study law in the office of attorney David Robinson, where his contemporaries included Thomas Ruffin. While apprenticing under Robinson, he attended the trial of Aaron Burr, accused of treason for his role in events now known as the Burr conspiracy. During the trial, Scott developed a negative opinion of the Senior Officer of the United States Army, General James Wilkinson, as the result of Wilkinson's obvious efforts to minimize his complicity in Burr's actions by providing forged evidence and false, self-serving testimony.
In 1807, Scott gained his initial military experience as a corporal of cavalry in the Virginia militia, serving in the midst of the Chesapeake–Leopard Affair. Scott led a detachment that captured eight British sailors who had attempted to land in order to purchase provisions. Virginia authorities did not approve of this action, fearing it might spark a wider conflict, they soon ordered the release of the prisoners; that year, Scott attempted to establish a legal practice in South Carolina, but was unable to obtain a law license due to failing to meet a state residency requirement. In early 1808, President Thomas Jefferson asked Congress to authorize an expansion of the United States Army after the British announced an escalation of their naval blockade of France, thereby threatening American shipping. Scott convinced an old friend, William Branch Giles, to help him obtain a commission in the newly-expanded army. In May 1808, shortly before his twenty-second birthday, Scott was commissioned as a captain in the light artillery.
Tasked with recruiting a company, he raised his troops from the Petersburg and Richmond areas, traveled with his unit to New Orleans to join his regiment. Scott was deeply
Traditionally an oath is either a statement of fact or a promise with wording relating to something considered sacred as a sign of verity. A common legal substitute for those who conscientiously object to making sacred oaths is to give an affirmation instead. Nowadays when there is no notion of sanctity involved, certain promises said out loud in ceremonial or juridical purpose are referred to as oaths. "To swear" is a verb used to describe the taking of an oath, to making a solemn vow. The word come from Anglo-Saxon āð judicial swearing, solemn appeal to deity in witness of truth or a promise," from Proto-Germanic *aithaz, from PIE *oi-to- "an oath". Common to Celtic and Germanic a loan-word from one to the other, but the history is obscure and it may be non-Indo-European. In reference to careless invocations of divinity, from late 12c. Oaths have referred to a deity significant in the cultural sphere in question; the reciter's personal views upon the divinity of the aspects considered sacred in a predictated text of an oath may or may not be taken in to account.
There might not be alternative personal proclamations with no mention of the sacred dogma in question, such as affirmations, to be made. This might mean an impasse to those with unwillingness to edify the dogma they see as untrue and those who decline to refer to sacred matters on the subject at hand; the essence of a divine oath is an invocation of divine agency to be a guarantor of the oath taker's own honesty and integrity in the matter under question. By implication, this invokes divine displeasure, it therefore implies greater care than usual in the act of the performance of one's duty, such as in testimony to the facts of the matter in a court of law. A person taking an oath indicates this in a number of ways; the most usual is the explicit "I swear", but any statement or promise that includes "with * as my witness" or "so help me *", with'*' being something or someone the oath-taker holds sacred, is an oath. Many people take an oath by holding in their hand or placing over their head a book of scripture or a sacred object, thus indicating the sacred witness through their action: such an oath is called corporal.
However, the chief purpose of such an act is for ceremony or solemnity, the act does not of itself make an oath. Making vows and taking oaths became a symbolic concept in law practice that developed over time in different cultures; the concept of oaths is rooted within Judaism. It is found in Genesis 8:21, when God swears that he will "never again curse the ground because of man and never again smite every living thing"; this repetition of the term never again is explained by Rashi, the pre-eminent biblical commentator, as serving as an oath, citing the Talmud Shavous 36a for this ruling. The first personage in the biblical tradition to take an oath is held to be Eliezer, the chief servant of Abraham, when the latter requested of the former that he not take a wife for his son Isaac from the daughters of Canaan, but rather from among Abraham's own family; the foundational text for oath making is in Numbers 30:2: "When a man voweth a vow unto the Lord, or sweareth an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word.
According to the Rabbis, a neder refers to a shâmar to the person. The passage distinguishes between a neder and a shvua, an important distinction between the two in Halakha: a neder changes the status of some external thing, while a shvua initiates an internal change in the one who swears the oath. In the Roman tradition, oaths were sworn upon Iuppiter Lapis or the Jupiter Stone located in the Temple of Jupiter, Capitoline Hill. Iuppiter Lapis was held in the Roman tradition to be an Oath Stone, an aspect of Jupiter in his role as divine law-maker responsible for order and used principally for the investiture of the oathtaking of office. According to Cyril Bailey, in "The Religion of Ancient Rome": We have, for instance, the sacred stone, preserved in the temple of Iuppiter on the Capitol, was brought out to play a prominent part in the ceremony of treaty-making; the fetial, who on that occasion represented the Roman people, at the solemn moment of the oath-taking, struck the sacrificial pig with the silex, saying as he did so, "Do thou, strike the Roman people as I strike this pig here to-day, strike them the more, as thou art greater and stronger."
Here no doubt the underlying notion is not symbolical, but in origin the stone is itself the god, an idea which religion expressed in the cult-title specially used in this connection, Iuppiter Lapis. The punisher of broken oaths was the infernal deity Orcus. Walter Burkert has shown that since Lycurgus of Athens, who held that "it is the oath which holds democracy together", religion and political organization had been linked by the oath, the oath and its prerequisite altar had become the basis of both civil and criminal, as well as international law. Various religious groups have objected to the taking of oaths, most notably the Religious Society of Friends and Anabaptist groups, like Mennonites, Amish and Schwarzenau Brethren; this is principally based on Matthew 5:34 -- 37. Here, Christ is written to say "I say to you:'Swear not at all'". James the Just stated in James 5:12, "Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your'Yes' be ye
An expatriate is a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country other than their native country. In common usage, the term refers to professionals, skilled workers, or artists taking positions outside their home country, either independently or sent abroad by their employers, who can be companies, governments, or non-governmental organisations. Migrant workers, they earn more than they would at home, less than local employees. However, the term'expatriate' is used for retirees and others who have chosen to live outside their native country, it has referred to exiles. The word expatriate comes from the Latin terms patria. Dictionary definitions for the current meaning of the word include: Expatriate:'A person who lives outside their native country', or'living in a foreign land'; these contrast with definitions of other words with a similar meaning, such as: Migrant:'A person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions', or'one that migrates: such as a: a person who moves in order to find work in harvesting crops'.
The varying use of these terms for different groups of foreigners can thus be seen as implying nuances about wealth, intended length of stay, perceived motives for moving and race. This has caused controversy, with many asserting that the traditional use of the word has had racist connotations. For example, a British national working in Spain or Portugal is referred to as an'expatriate', whereas a Spanish or Portuguese national working in Britain is referred to as an'immigrant', thus indicating Anglocentrism. An older usage of the word expatriate was to refer to an exile. Alternatively, when used as a verb, expatriation can mean the act of someone renouncing allegiance to their native country, as in the preamble to the United States Expatriation Act of 1868 which says,'the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life and the pursuit of happiness.'Some neologisms have been coined, including: flexpatriate, an employee who travels internationally for business.
Since antiquity, people have gone to live in foreign countries, whether as diplomats, merchants or missionaries. The numbers of such travellers grew markedly after the 15th century with the dawn of the European colonial period. In the 19th century, travel became easier by way of train. People could more choose to live for several years in a foreign country, or be sent there by employers; the table below aims to show significant examples of expatriate communities which have developed since that time: During the 1930s, Nazi Germany revoked the citizenship of many opponents, such as Albert Einstein, Oskar Maria Graf, Willy Brandt and Thomas Mann expatriating entire families. After World War II, decolonisation accelerated. However, lifestyles which had developed among European colonials continued to some degree in expatriate communities. Remnants of the old British Empire, for example, can still be seen in the form of gated communities staffed by domestic workers. Social clubs which have survived include the Royal Selangor.
Homesick palates are catered for by specialist food shops, drinkers can still order a gin and tonic, a pink gin, or a Singapore Sling. Although pith helmets are confined to military ceremonies, civilians still wear white dinner jackets or Red Sea rig on occasion; the use of curry powder has long since spread to the metropole. From the 1950s, scheduled flights on jet airliners further increased the speed of international travel; this enabled a hypermobility which led to the jet set, to global nomads and the concept of a perpetual traveler. In recent years, terrorist attacks against Westerners have at times curtailed the party lifestyle of some expatriate communities in the Middle East; the number of expatriates in the world is difficult to determine, since there is no governmental census. The international market research and consulting company Finaccord estimated the number to be 56.8 million in 2017. That would resemble the population of Italy. In 2013, the United Nations estimated that 232 million people, or 3.2 per cent of the world population, lived outside their home country.
Many multinational corporations send employees to foreign countries to work in branch offices or subsidiaries. Expatriate employees allow a parent company to more control its foreign subsidiaries, they can improve global coordination. A 2007 study found the key drivers for expatriates to pursue international careers were: breadth of responsibilities, nature of the international environment, high levels of autonomy of international posts and cultural differences. However, expatriate professionals and independent expatriate hires are more expensive than local employees. Expatriate salaries are augmented with allowances to compensate for a higher cost of living or hardships associated with a foreign posting. Other expenses may need to be paid, such as health care, housing, or fees at an international school. There is th
In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority a governing law or a régime. Whereas "authority" denotes a specific position in an established government, the term "legitimacy" denotes a system of government—wherein "government" denotes "sphere of influence". An authority viewed as legitimate has the right and justification to exercise power. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular régimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential élite. In Chinese political philosophy, since the historical period of the Zhou Dynasty, the political legitimacy of a ruler and government was derived from the Mandate of Heaven, unjust rulers who lost said mandate therefore lost the right to rule the people. In moral philosophy, the term "legitimacy" is positively interpreted as the normative status conferred by a governed people upon their governors' institutions and actions, based upon the belief that their government's actions are appropriate uses of power by a constituted government.
The Enlightenment-era British social philosopher John Locke said that political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed: "The argument of the Treatise is that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the governed." The German political philosopher Dolf Sternberger said that "egitimacy is the foundation of such governmental power as is exercised, both with a consciousness on the government's part that it has a right to govern, with some recognition by the governed of that right". The American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset said that legitimacy "involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society"; the American political scientist Robert A. Dahl explained legitimacy as a reservoir: so long as the water is at a given level, political stability is maintained, if it falls below the required level, political legitimacy is endangered.
Legitimacy is "a value whereby something or someone is recognized and accepted as right and proper". In political science, legitimacy is understood as the popular acceptance and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing régime, whereby authority has political power through consent and mutual understandings, not coercion; the three types of political legitimacy described by German sociologist Max Weber are traditional and rational-legal: Traditional legitimacy derives from societal custom and habit that emphasize the history of the authority of tradition. Traditionalists understand this form of rule as accepted, hence its continuity, because it is the way society has always been. Therefore, the institutions of traditional government are continuous, as in monarchy and tribalism. Charismatic legitimacy derives from the ideas and personal charisma of the leader, a person whose authoritative persona charms and psychologically dominates the people of the society to agreement with the government's régime and rule.
A charismatic government features weak political and administrative institutions, because they derive authority from the persona of the leader, disappear without the leader in power. However, if the charismatic leader has a successor, a government derived from charismatic legitimacy might continue. Rational-legal legitimacy derives from a system of institutional procedure, wherein government institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest. Therefore, it is through public trust that the government will abide the law that confers rational-legal legitimacy. In a theocracy, government legitimacy derives from the spiritual authority of a goddess. In ancient Egypt, the legitimacy of the dominion of a Pharaoh was theologically established by doctrine that posited the pharaoh as the Egyptian patron god Horus, son of Osiris. In the Roman Catholic Church, the priesthood derives its legitimacy from a divine source; the political legitimacy of a civil government derives from agreement among the autonomous constituent institutions—legislative, executive—combined for the national common good.
One way civil society grants. There are those who refute the legitimacy offered by public elections, pointing out that the amount of legitimacy public elections can grant depends on the electoral system conducting the elections. In the United States this issue has surfaced around how voting is impacted by gerrymandering and the repeal of part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. Another challenge to the political legitimacy offered by elections is whether or not marginalized groups such as women or those who are incarcerated are allowed to vote. Civil legitimacy can be granted through different measures for accountability than voting, such as financial transparency and stake-holder accountability. In the international system another method for measuring civil legitimacy is through accountability to international human rights norms. In an effort determine what makes a government legitimate the Center for Public Impact launched a project to hold a global conversation about legitimacy stating, inviting citizens and governments to participate.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments to this day, the amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War; the amendment was bitterly contested by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges regarding same-sex marriage; the amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official. The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause.
The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Since the Slaughter-House Cases, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted to do little; the Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy; the Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups.
The second and fourth sections of the amendment are litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion, or other crime" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement; the fourth section was held, in Perry v. United States, to prohibit a current Congress from abrogating a contract of debt incurred by a prior Congress; the fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by "appropriate legislation". Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed, but when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, having taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, but Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4; the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. In the final years of the American Civil War and the Reconstruction Era that followed, Congress debated the rights of black former slaves freed by the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation and the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment, the latter of which had formally abolished slavery. Following the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment by Congress, Republicans grew concerned over the increase it would create in the congressional representation of the Democratic-dominated Southern States; because the full population of fre