Who makes USA foreign policy?
United States’ foreign policy refers to a policy upon which the government interrelates with other native countries for the welfare of its citizens. The president of the USA being the commander in chief of the armed forces is usually vested with the role of making the foreign policy by the second article of the United States’ constitution. As the principal behind the United States foreign policy, the president has a role of ensuring that the United States thrives in the trade and industry, security as well as politics in the global arena. There are, however, some collisions that occur between the United States’ president and the senate, and, therefore, the senate can pin down the president’s power with regards to foreign policy.
The president’s power, that is accorded by the second article of the constitution, includes the power to make agreements with other nations but with the authority of the congress, the power to assign envoys to foreign countries also with the authority of the congress and also the power to welcome foreign envoys. The article also ascertains the president as the commandant of the military in the United States, thus giving him great influence with regards to how the United States interrelates with the international community (Cox & Stokes 56-67).
Comparison and contrasting of the USA involvement through the UN in Haiti and Somalia
Both the republics of Haiti and Somalia have been affected by the lack of efficient government, and this thus makes the international community to be involved in deciding the fate of the two nations with a view of helping the citizens. Both countries have gone into wars in an effort of electing a government and many people have perished as a result. The United States, through the United Nations, was involved in missions in both countries to promote peace.
However, the peace mission in Somalia was not successful as compared to that of Haiti, the reason being that in Somalia, the United Nations forces were opposed, and the government didn’t want them there. This opposite to the case of Haiti where the mission was successful because the United Nations forces were welcomed, and this allowed the United States to be involved through the UN to help halt the war.
The United States’ effort to provide aid to the Somalia residents through the United Nations had succeeded. The UN with the American military continued to stay in Somalia to build the infrastructure, and their continued stay was, however, opposed by Somali leaders who objected by killing many soldiers. In the end, both the US with the UN left the country and left it in a worse state more than they found that i.e. in chaos. The United States thus blamed the United Nations as a result of the killings of the
Both the United States as well as the United Nations mission in Somalia did not consider the touching issues of Somalia residents, and as a result, their intervention did not bear fruits to help Somalia recover from the devastating economic conditions.
In Haiti, however, the United States policy through the United Nations is viewed by many as not to protect the citizens’ rights but rather to protect the business interests in this case the oil. The United States is deemed to be hiding behind the United Nations with regards to humanitarian aid to continue using the ports of Haiti waters (Holsti 16-25).
How has judicial review affected the law in the United States?
The judicial review entails the process by which the legislative as well as the executive arms of government in the United States are controlled by courts to ensure that neither of the two is more powerful than the other. The law has been affected in that the courts have exercised the judicial review to interpret the meaning of the laws as well as their application. The courts are thus involved with the act of examining the legal matters that are forwarded to them, and they use their influence of the judicial review in interpreting the legal constraints in the constitution to prescribe how the government ought to carry out its operations.
Thus, any law that is deemed to be contradictory to the constitution of the United States can be struck down. The federal law can be struck down by the courts in a situation whereby the constitution deems it as being null and void. The judicial review has thus enabled courts in the United States to regard a state law as invalid if it is believed to conflict with federal law. Also, a municipal and local law is regarded as inferior if it is believed to be conflicting with the federal law (Neubauer & Meinhold 18).
Definition of the following terms: adversary system of justice, plea bargaining, bail, and indictment.
The adversary system of justice
The adversary system of justice entails the law system, which is adopted in those countries that practice common such as the United States, whereby the parties that are contesting present their arguments, and an impartial person is involved in determining the facts about a case. The person who is determining the truth is deemed to be unbiased during the proceedings. Thus, in the adversary system, each party is accorded with a chance of presenting his or her argument, and the truth is finally arrived at.
The system usually enhances objectivity with regards to facts consideration. The rule also makes sure that the trials are done efficiently. The adversary form of the legal system is widely accepted by many people as it is regarded as an efficient mode of settling disputes. The system requires both the plaintiff as well as the defendant to be directly involved during the preparation of the case. To facilitate proper preparation of cases, the adversary system of justice makes use of legal experts such as lawyers.
However, the system is usually time-consuming and expensive, and this denies many people justice. The adversary system of justice is also characterized by oral evidence implying that the witnesses can be influenced by lawyers and thus their evidence may end up being irrelevant. There are also technicalities in this form of the legal system and, therefore, confusion may arise rendering the whole process to be quite expensive and tiresome (Gaines & Miller 122).
Plea bargaining
Plea bargaining entails the agreement that is aimed at providing the defendant with a chance of pleading guilty. Plea bargaining is viewed as an important incentive because it helps avoid the overloading of cases in courts. The accused is, thus given a chance of avoiding being convicted on the initial serious charges. However, plea bargaining is usually deemed as a shortcut to a fair trial as they don’t give victory to the involved parties.
In plea bargaining, there are 3 main aspects of negotiations, which include; charge bargaining, sentence bargaining, and fact bargaining. Charge bargaining is a form of negotiation which is concerned with the specific crimes that an accused is deemed to be prosecuted for. Sentence bargaining usually enables the accused to have a lighter sentence. Fact bargaining is not widely used negotiation, and it is concerned with the introduction of other facts on top of the already existing ones, and therefore the prosecutor is relieved of his or her duties of proving the facts.
Term Bail
Usually, a person who has committed criminal activities is detained in court until when he is proved to be innocent. The court thus has the authority to release a person before he or she is proved to be innocent or guilty and this is what is referred to as a term bail. The option to release a person before the determining as to whether he or she is innocent or guilty is usually decided by a judge when the defendant appears for the first time. The court can use such methods as posting a bond on bail or pledging money to release the defendant on bail.
Term indictment
Term indictment refers to an accusation that is made in writing, showing that the persons whom names appear were charged for committing a crime that is punishable in a court of law. The defendant is made to understand the accusations as they are read out to him or her. Term indictment usually contains such details as the names of the defendant, the place where the crime was committed, details of the crime among others (Cole & Smith 172).
Works Cited
Cole, George & Smith, Christopher.The American System of Criminal Justice. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2006.
Cox, Micheal & Stokes, Doug. US foreign policy. London: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Gaines Larry & Miller, Roger.Criminal Justice in Action.Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2006.
Holsti, Ole. Public opinion and American foreign policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Neubauer, David & Meinhold, Stephen.Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2009.