need back in 2 hours

Respond to each peer DQ post with 3-4 sentences

1. The Supreme Court often makes final judgments on a wide variety of cases. How does their decision

affect the legislative review of the law or statute that was involved in the final decision? Discuss some of

the ramifications of this decision based on other social issues occurring at the time. When researching

and analyzing the issue of past judicial review; related to history of the court protecting the rights of the

mentally ill.  It was apparent that there as very little done health revise legislature related to this issue.

The earliest court involvement in this matter took place in the 1970’s; At this time there was substantial

lawmaking efforts initiated. The purpose of this initiative was “securing the liberties of persons in the

mental health process”. However, as of recent there has been very little accomplished by the US

legislature and regulatory agencies in behalf of this effort. This has left the responsibility of providing

equality and justice for matters pertaining to the mentally disabled (local state and federal court

system).

The issue is,  though there are various unspecified provisions outlined in the US Constitution, the major

basis for court decision, has been individual interpretation of the US Constitution, examination of

evidence and the outcome of other litigations.  Because of this fact , the application of caselaw; has

been influential in  the creation of federal statutes and regulations. In addition, many trial cases appear

to have undergone appellate review. The data reviewed, is inclusive of federal courts of appeal and state

supreme courts.

A case that is pertinent to this debate is O'Connor v. Donaldson, this case was decided by the

Supreme Court in 1975, and was  the first “civil" mental case to reach the Court on the merits. “All

previous cases involved persons who had first been involved in the criminal process, and then been

diverted to the mental health system either because of incompetency to stand trial or commitment

after conviction to a "therapeutic," rather than punitive, but decided them on procedural grounds or

summarily denied review or affirmed.” (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 493 F.2d 507 (5th Cir.

1974)).  Another case that can be referenced is  The Kenneth Donaldson case of 1957  due to the fact

the that it emphasizes; the right to treatment. In this case the plaintiff Kenneth Donaldson, was

committed to Chattahoochee State Hospital in Florida and released 141/2 years later after filing for

release. To summarize, suit was filed on the grounds that he was reported as being denied treatment,

this right is implied but not specified by the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. “The Fifth Circuit

affirmed in a Far reaching opinion which elaborated a constitutional theory of the right to treatment.”

(493 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1974)).

The result was that the court declined to acknowledge the right-to-treatment issue; hence

this is why there is a need for the revision of legislation, related to mental health treatment provisions.

This type of situation, has been an ongoing issue since the 50’s and it deserves more attention from the

federal and state government. The failure of The Supreme Court, review more cases pertaining to that

of mental illness and make decisions that will contribute to case law research; which will be valuable to

argue the need for legislative revisions. Because of this failure on behalf of the judicial system, cases

such as that of Matthew Adjibade and Tony Lester reflect the future of community and judicial relations without the proper legislation.

In both cases, these individuals were  mistreated, neglected and killed within the legal system. This is  

indicative of the current dissatisfactory state of progress in relation to this matter.  The judicial system

and proof of the detriment of the mentally ill, points back at the hands of the judicial/legal system.

There must be more done now! To protect this underserved population and the civil rights of these

individuals. The implementation of legislature can only be accomplished and enforced with the help of

the judicial system. The pros of this implementation will be the reduction of the following:

·          risk of suicide 

·         risk for both psychiatric and medical hospitalization 

·         Exacerbation of physical problems

·         Alcohol and/or drug abuse or dependence

·         Wrongful Incarceration or inappropriate punishment for crimes

·         Homelessness

·         Use of excessive force when detaining indivduals

·         Mistreatment of inmates with mental illness

·         Refusal of medical services and health management

·         Improper Restraint and Documentation procedure

The Cons are that the implementation of legislature, revised policies and procedures and mental health screening process and community education. Will require more manpower and time. This may decrease operational production. But it will save lives.

                                                    References

O'Connor v. Donaldson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 493 F.2d 507 (5th Cir.

1974) retrieved from Westlaw on 3/3/2016.

"The U.S. Constitution has a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. The interaction of the legislature

and the judicial system does not occur as a result of formal meetings, but as a result of the system of checks and balances. Judicial checks on

the legislature are mainly through the process of judicial review. As a result of these rulings and judgments, federal legal precedent is set, which

impacts the Constitutional power of the legislative branch of the government (South, 2016)." 

The interactions between the legislative and the judicial branches of governments take place systematically through a balance of powers g

governed by the US Constitution and are interpreted by the judicial branches of government. The interactions between these two branches of

government take place through judicial review in mandated exchanges. There are private interest groups which seek to influence judicial review,

in order for it's interpretation of the meaning of laws, to fulfill their meaning, in order to further promote their agenda. 

"For instance, interest groups can seek to control the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution so that their interests are supported in the

judicial review process. Interest groups are active in influencing judicial appointments and regulatory policy. By strengthening the formal

mechanisms of judicial accountability, the informal mechanisms adopted by interest groups to control constitutional meaning can be weakened

(South, 2016)."

"As Madison wrote,  The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, may justly be pronounced the

very definition of tyranny. The Federalist, No. 47. The concept of Federalism is defined by the interaction between a strong, central Federal

government and largely independent state governments, and the specifically and implicitly enumerated powers granted the Federal government by

the Constitution (Israel, 2016)." 

Even during the days of James Madison was the understanding, interpretation, and a resounding fact that if all powers legislative, executive,

and judiciary were within the hands of the person, party, or entity, then the yielding of powers would certainly mean 'tyranny' for the people with

whom its governed. There are several examples that are listed below which include interactions between the legislative and the judicial branch of

government. All of which illustrate a balance of power in the purest form throughout the history of the US Constitution. 

"A state’s power is limited only insofar as no state may pass any law that violates the Constitution. For example, a state has the right to

pass a law setting the maximum speed limit at 55 miles per hour, as this does not violate any Constitutional provisions. The Federal government,

however, is limited to passing laws in only those areas in which the Constitution bestows it power. So while the Federal government can withhold

national highway funds from states that do not comply with its desire for a 55 m.p.h. speed limit, the Federal government itself cannot pass such

a law absent Constitutional authority (Israel, 2016)."

"Following the 1819 Supreme Court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), the scope of the Congressional power granted

by Article I of the U.S. Constitution increased significantly. This is because the Court in McCulloch found that not every power meant to be

granted Congress could have been spelled out in the Constitution. The difference between the Constitution and a complete legal code is that the

Constitution does not require that every power be explicitly stated or minutiae fully described. Rather, the powers specifically enumerated in the

Constitution entail some further implied powers. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has read the "Necessary and Proper Clause" to grant

precisely these implied powers to Congress (Israel, 2016)."

"But the Court held that Congress’ power to create and operate a national bank was implicit, i.e., because Congress did have the power to

handle national finances, a federal bank was therefore a "useful, convenient and essential instrument" (it was necessary and proper) for fulfilling

this Constitutional obligation. The Supreme Court has recognized the fluid nature of Congressional power pursuant to the Necessary and Proper

Clause. Instructive here is an excerpt from New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992):

"This [Constitutional] framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of

government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first,

because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not

have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the

Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government's role

(Israel, 2016)."

 "In other words, while the Constitutionally enumerated powers granted the Federal government are static, absent a Constitutional

amendment, the meaning and scope of those powers must remain sufficiently flexible to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government.

So, the interaction between state and Federal government in our Federal system is a fluid concept, which operates differently as it is applied in

different times and different contexts, and over time, Congress’ power has steadily increased in range pursuant to Supreme Court decisions

(Israel, 2016)."

 Article I of the US Constitution creates the Congress and grants its powers, and Section 8 specifies how some of these powers are to be

applied. Congress has the power to borrow  money, regulate commerce, coin money, establish federal courts below the Supreme Court, form an

Army and Navy; to tax and spend (General Welfare Clause); to declare war; to make laws necessary and proper 'Necessary and Proper Clause'

(Israel, 2016).

In conclusion the general welfare cause allows Congress to create tax and spend money that it believes will serve the general welfare of the

citizens in the states. In contrast, Congress cannot simply pass laws to serve the general welfare. The 10th Amendment prevents Congress from

over stepping its boundaries by preventing Congress from forcing states to pass any regulations or legislation. "Congressional power to legislate

pursuant to the General Welfare Clause, however, may lead to troublesome results because it may provide Congress the ability to circumvent

limitations on its authority, e.g., by using its spending power to achieve its goals (Israel, 2016)." All of which are the examples of the interactions

between the legislative and judicial branch of government, as it can be defined within the Constitution, and interpreted by the Supreme Court.  


References:

South University Week 5 Lectures (2016)

Susan Israel, Checks and Balances and the Three Branches of Government (2016). http://nationalparalegal.edu/ChecksAndBalances.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1