0
The most recent federal judge to be impeached was G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On March 11, 2010, the House of Representatives voted unanimously to impeach Porteous on four articles that included a long-standing pattern of corruption, concealing assets, gambling and other financial irregularities, and making material false statements to the FBI. His Senate trial is scheduled to begin on September 13, 2010.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Ezra
Judy
Professor
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why do you think the branches of government are discussed in this order and at this length?
The legislative branch is discussed first and in greatest detail because it was meant to have the most power. The executive branch is next discussed at little length because it was not meant to be too powerful and meant to be protected against. The judicial branch is discussed last and least in depth because its role was not fully realized yet and its power was minimal.
What are 2 executive checks over the legislative branch?
== == One is the fact that the judicial branch needs the executive branch to enforce its decisions. As an example, when the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional in Brown v. Bd. of Education of Topeka, it took the President's ordering the National Guard out to make some states abide by the ruling. The Judicial Branch has no way to enforce its decisions without the executive's co-operation. Another is the fact that it is the executive branch that nominates the judges in the first place. As a practical matter, presidents nominate persons who share the same political beliefs they do. This has the effect of creating (or trying to create) a judicial branch that will interpret the Constitution the way that that president would like. Trouble is, once a Supreme Court Justice is confirmed, nothing can be done to force him or her to rule in a particular way. They are appointed with lifetime tenure on good behavior and their salaries cannot be diminished while they are in office. And as to salaries, nothing says a president has to include raises for them in any budget he proposes.
What is one way the executive branch influences fiscal policy?
The legislative branch (Congress) approves the executive's (President's) proposals or come up with their own policy for money use. An example is the federal budget which Congress passes and acts on tax and spending legislation.
Which branch approves or vetoes bills?
The answer to this question depends entirely upon the nation in question; almost all modern democracies lack any provision for a power of veto at all, and the rules of the power of veto differ from nation to nation.In the United States, the President - who exercises the power of the executive branch - holds the power of veto, which he has the right to exercise (provided he has valid reasons for opposition to a law) unless Congress over-rules him with a supermajority. Many European nations with a President also have the power of veto, but in every case this power is much more limited. In France and Italy for example, the executivecan refuse to approve a law, but the legislature can over-rule this by passing the law for a second time with a normal majority vote. In almost every nation in the world, it is the executive branch that has this power.The United Kingdom is, however, a major exception. In theory, the Monarch holds the power of veto over any law, but this power has only been exercised once since the unification of Great Britain in 1707 (and it was exercised in that year). Though the Monarch no longer has any executive functions, they are nonetheless officially the head of the executive branch.Uniquely however, the United Kingdom also gives the power of veto to its legislative branch, and this is a power that is still - albeit rarely - exercised today. The House of Lords, which is the upper house of the UK's bicameral Parliament, has the power to veto a law, but this veto may only last for one full year, after which the law is considered to have been passed. Furthermore, the House is forbidden - both by law and unwritten convention - to veto any law a party promised to pass in its manifesto, which means it has few opportunities to exercise this power on major items of legislation. Some question whether or not this can truly be considered a veto then, given its limited scope and the fact it is legislative, and not executive.
How is A president's executive order is based on authority given by congress or?
The executive order is just about as good as the paper it is written on. If the order is against laws all ready in existence it goes to the courts. If it is against the constitution it goes to the courts. Perfect example of this is the recent immigration orders of Trump. Those are now in federal court and the judicial branch has gone into action barring enforcement. Some of his executive orders have been pure nonsense. He did one on making a new holiday, but unless congress acts that is the end of that. Trump's repealing of regulations is much more dangerous and as of last week he had repealed 90 regulations.
