0
It means to get the better of, especially be deceitful cleverness; outwit.
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Were the founding fathers more concerned about overreaching government power or the mass class?
The founding fathers were more concerned about overreaching government power.
What are two things that the US Constitution does?
to make/create laws that can be established in the United States and control spending.
For what purpose did the framers give the power to impeach to the House of Representatives?
orginially the house was the only national legislative body directly representative of the people. The idea of this power to the house was to reflect the power of the people. The senate was to act in the interest of the states. The politics behind their findings from the impeachment trial would also be less likely to be influenced by politics since they are elected for a six year term. The overreaching idea is that Madison drafted a plan to ensure checks and balances in various powers of government
Is the US President required to enforce a Supreme Court decision even if he disagrees with it?
In order to protect the checks and balances of the government the Supreme Court can find a piece of legislation unconstitutional, but their decision can not be overridden by the President. The only way that the decision of the Supreme Court can be overruled is by them reversing their decision or the constitution of the state being revised. The President has the power to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court - with confirmation by the Senate but once they are on the bench, their rulings are binding and the President cannot overrule them. The most that the President could do is persuade Congress to impeach a member of the Court (otherwise they serve until they either resign/retire or until they die). The President could also work with Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn a ruling by the Supreme Court.
Under the federal system of the US government which power is reserved for the states?
It is the Tenth Amendment that answers this question directly:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.If it was the intent of the questioner to have all powers reserved to the states listed then sincerest apologies are offered but to attempt to do so would only confuse the issue as the powers reserved to the states is only a part of what the Tenth Amendment has addressed. The intent of this Amendment is to acknowledge that what the Constitution has done is grant a limited amount of power for a limited amount of time granted to that federal government by the will of the people. It is the people who hold the inherent political power and both the federal and state governments are subject to the people.The Tenth Amendment makes clear that certain powers were not delegated to the federal government and that those powers then belonged either to the state or to the people respectively. What does this mean in terms of the federal governments jurisdiction over states and the people? The Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Raich may serve as an illustration of this basic power struggle between the federal government, the states and the people. In Gonzales v. Reich, Angel Reich was faced with agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, (DEA), accompanied by deputies of the Butte County Sheriff's department who destroyed her "homegrown" marijuana plants of which she claimed legal authority to grow due to Proposition 215, which declared the medical use of marijuana legal. California voters had passed proposition 215 in 1989. The federal government claimed jurisdiction to destroy those plants by way of the Controlled Substance Act, (CSA), which is itself Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 1970 and that Act finds it authority, as most prohibition tend to find authority through first taxation, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.Raich sued the federal government asserting that an enforcement of the CSA in this regard was a direct violation of the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment as well as a violation of the doctrine of medical necessity, itself being a common law principle known more generally as the law of necessity. Constitutionally speaking, which is to say that supreme law of the land which dictates what the federal government can and can not do, the federal government can only pass and enforce laws that have been specifically delegated to it. Furthermore, the federal government does not hold any general police powers thus, as per the Tenth Amendment, the states do. This limitation on an ambitious federal government has meant that many laws of which they seek to impose are done so under the very same Commerce Clause Raich had asserted was violated.This ambition of expansion for federal power has existed for many years and even before the overarching efforts of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his "New Deal" policies. During the time of the New Deal, many of Roosevelt's proposed programs were overturned by a Supreme Court far more interested in the rights of the people than any modern court has shown since. Thus, the Supreme Court of the 1930's had struck down as unconstitutional many of the New Deal programs. Roosevelt, intent on expanding the role of the Presidency, proposed expanding the Court from an appointed nine sitting Supreme Court Judges to fifteen. This was known as Roosevelt's "court packing scheme", which was an attempt to pack the court with judges sympathetic to Roosevelt's cause. The Supreme Court, in what has become known as "the switch in time that saved nine", reversed their stance on federal government expansion and began to uphold New Deal programs and in doing so saved the Court and conserved the traditional number of nine sitting judges. It would seem, it is not just the voters who engage in lesser of two evils type decisions.Angel Raich, along with her partner Diane Monson and two anonymous caregivers sued the federal government for injunctive and declaratory relief in an attempt to stop the federal government from further intrusion claiming that the Controlled Substance Act was unconstitutional in this context. Their contention that the Commerce Clause gave the federal government jurisdiction in this matter was false as they effectively demonstrated that the marijuana they grew and used had not been purchased, nor obtained from another state, and all products needed to grow the marijuana such as soil, seed and lumber had all been purchased within the state of California. Raich, further asserted that the need for marijuana was a medical necessity due to numerous medical conditions and her own allergic reactions to synthetic medicines available by pharmaceutical companies. Her doctor testified under oath as to the veracity of this claim and stated for the record that Raich's life was indeed in danger without the use of marijuana. Monson also claimed a need for marijuana due to chronic pain brought about by an automobile accident a decade earlier.The federal government defended its actions by claiming that federal law does not recognize the use of marijuana as medicine. The enforcement of such law was predicated on the belief that federal law preempted that of California law. They further argued that if an exception was made then the law itself would become unenforceable. They also argued, as remarkable as this may seem, that consumption of homegrown marijuana affects interstate marketing of marijuana and as such the federal government may regulate or prohibit this consumption. It was the Ninth Circuit of appeals that granted Raich and Monson a preliminary injunction preventing the federal government any more interference in Raich and Monson's growing of the substance and stated:"We find that the appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the Controlled substance Act is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority..."Of course, given past rulings by the Ninth Circuit, it is rare that anyone takes this courts decisions seriously, including the residents of California. So the battle in this "war on drugs" heated into full scale legal war and organizations such as The Partnership for a Drug Free America and unbelievably an organization then known as The Community Rights Counsel, now known as The Constitutional Accountability Center combined with an alliance of seven Congressmen filed an amicus brief on the side of the federal government. It, of course, should be expected that an organization such as The Partnership For a Drug Free America would act on the side of the government in regards to this issue but the actions of the Community Rights Counsel is not so understandable. By the language of their own web page, the former Community Rights Counsel claimed to be a non-profit organization formed in 1997 to "assist communities in protecting their health and welfare". Also claiming to "Promote Constitutional principles to defend laws that make our communities environmentally sound and socially just." Apparently, the health and welfare of Raich and Monson did not matter and they were just two more threats to a sound environment and social justice.On the side of Raicih and Monson, The Cato Institute, The Institute for Justice, NORML and many other Libertarian organizations that oppose the "war on drugs"along with the state governments of California, Maryland and Washington filed briefs on behalf of Raich and Monson. Surprisingly, the Attorneys General of three states avidly in support of anti-drug laws, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi each filed a brief in support of Raich on the grounds of states rights. Once these legal briefs were filed, oral arguments were heard on November 29th of 2004. Justice Stevens delivered the 6-3 decision on June 6th of 2005. The ruling upheld the constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act on the grounds that an illicit market of marijuana did indeed exist and was even acknowledged by both Raich and Monson who testified they had and would continue to participate in this black market if necessary. Furthermore, Justice Stevens pointed out that:"Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents' challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA's categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause."Justice Scalia in concurrence with this ruling wrote a separate opinion that stated:"Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so "could … undercut" its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between "what is truly national and what is truly local."In dissent Justice Sandra Day O'Conner had this to say: "Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case." Also dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas said: Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana...If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."...If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." The point in taking so much time to discuss a single Supreme Court ruling is to illustrate the contentious nature of the Tenth Amendment and the ongoing battle over which powers are reserved to the states and the people respectively. It should be also noted that when questions such as these are asked they are almost always framed in terms of states rights completely omitting those powers reserved for the people. That basic omission is one that has both directly and indirectly led to a tacit and even willful approval of an expanding federal government that has usurped more and more power that in all likelihood belongs to either the states or the people. It does, of course, remain an ongoing battle and Supreme Courts can overturn their rulings at any time. Those powers reserved to the states and the people respectively can only be held effectively through an ever vigilant and zealous people who jealously guard their natural rights and freedoms.
Were the founding fathers more concerned about overreaching government power or the mass class?
The founding fathers were more concerned about overreaching government power.
Is China overreaching?
Not really, I feel the government can pace itself in terms of progress.
What is something that would help prevent overreaching and thus prevent the horse from injury?
These boots help absorb the impact of overreaching, prevent bruising and scraping of soft tissue. Bell boots come in many colors that can be matched or provide contrast when used with other boot styles. bosch garden of earthly delights, Hieronymus bosch garden of earthly delights, norman rockwell biography, the garden of earthly delights hieronymus bosch.
What are the poisons used to make cocaine?
of corse cocaine is illegal and contains rat poisoning.
What is the moral of the theme or moral of The Man Who Would Be King?
The moral of "The Man Who Would Be King" is a cautionary tale about the dangers of ambition, arrogance, and the consequences of overreaching one's abilities. It warns against the temptation of power and the hubris that can lead to downfall.
Comparison between the economies in Spain and Netherlands in the 1600's?
In the 1600s, the Spanish economy was in decline whether the Netherlands economy was blooming into its Golden Age. A series of costly defeats in wars and territorial overreaching are attributed to the decline of the Spanish Empire.
Is The Flight of Icarus a didactic story?
Yes, The Flight of Icarus can be considered a didactic story because it serves as a cautionary tale, warning against hubris and the consequences of ignoring authority and limitations. The moral lesson of the story emphasizes the dangers of overreaching and the importance of heeding advice.
What word is used to describe 'aiming too high' for a particular goal?
There are phrases and terms that describe "aiming too high". Here are some examples: * beyond one's capabilities; * too ambitious; * overreaching; * overstepping one's bounds; and * beyond one's reach.
What would help prevent overreaching and thus protecting the horse from injury?
Habituation and consistency to encourage habituation. Habituation is simply another word for getting a horse used to one or a conglomeration of loud sounds, sudden movements, bright objects, etc., so that they don't over-react, panic and put itself and its rider/handler at risk of injury or worse. Overreaching in a horse is when the horse strikes a front leg with a hind leg it is typically due to conformation and stride length. There is not much that can be done for it other than training the horse to properly move out at each gait and applying overreach or bell boots to the horses legs.
What leg does overreach boot go on the horse?
These should go over both front hooves/pastern areas to keep your horse from "overreaching" or clipping it's front hooves with it's rear ones. Also, some of these problems can be corrected by a good farrier, after he/she observes the horses gait.
What is the most controversial program enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission?
The program against religious discrimination. Since the Constitution prevents Congress from making or enforcing any law about religious practice, EEOC's odd rules about keeping all workplaces religion-free are often viewed as overreaching.
What are two things that the US Constitution does?
to make/create laws that can be established in the United States and control spending.
