The Nevada Judiciary Branch : The Supreme Court

The Nevada governor is the executive head of the entire state. Nevada has its own laws and constitution and the Governor is the individual who oversees after internal governance of the state. The Governor also carries the power to finalize the budget of the state and to also appoint judges in the court system. The Governor is elected directly by the citizens of the state and serves a four-year term. The governor is also responsible for making sure that the state is prepared for emergencies and disasters, as most emergencies and disasters are overseen at the local level. The Governor also utilizes executive orders, for example: addressing administrative and management issues such as regulatory reform, discrimination,

Additional points of contrast strongly suggest that the executive and legislative branches likewise show that there is a difference between the U.S. Constitution and the Nevada State Constitution. For example, in the executive branch, the sitting president has the ability to appoint individuals

If there were too many differences, then the branches of government would be very chaotic because a lack of structure between the state and federal government. In the United States Constitution and Nevada constitution it outlines three structures of the government. They are both setup in the same and is broken into three different parts, The Legislature Department, The Executive Department and The Judiciary Department. In addition, both constitutions are broken up into articles and each article explains a general topic, but most important they both state in the preamble “We the People...” (THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA). This quote is significant because when the constitution is brought up, it is always the document of the people and the rights of the people. So it is important that no matter what, both constitutions had this quote within them. The United States Constitution and Nevada constitution don’t have significant differences because it reduces redundancy. The government for the citizens of Nevada is ran and structured the way they are today because of these two important

The Nevada Constitution is lengthier than its federal counterpart primarily because it contains many more policy-oriented provisions, as well as provisions concerning the character, virtue and even morality of its people than that of the federal Constitution. There is also a distinguished difference in the separation or distribution of powers as the federal constitution does not mandate any particular arrangement of governmental powers in the states. Also, provisions involving individual rights in the federal Constitution have not been incorporated so as to apply to the states.

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

In 1789, each of the thirteen states had already establish a judicial system such as criminal and civil cases. The United States Constitution is the original document in which it established fundamental laws for the national government as well as protecting the right of the citizens. The U.S Constitution was designed to avoid too much power in the system of checks and balances. As years went by, the Constitution began to adapt to the modern changes. Subsequently, the judicial system began to full fill the U.S Constitution’s purpose. Both Federal and State have their own jurisdiction and functions as stated in the Constitution. However, in recent years the judicial system has been broken due to lack of structure in law on the book and law in action.

The U.S. Constitution created a strong government structure for the United States known as federalism. Both the federal and state governments must have their own court systems to apply and interpret their own specific laws. Both federal and state constitutions attempt to do this by specifically spelling out the jurisdiction of their own court systems. For example, U.S Constitution gives Congress the power to make uniform laws concerning bankruptcies, a state court would lack jurisdiction in this matter. Since the Constitution does not give the federal government authority in most matters concerning the regulation of the family, a federal court would lack jurisdiction in a divorce case. This is the main reason why there are two separate court systems in America. The federal court system deals with issues of law relating to those powers implicitly granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. The state court systems deal with issues of laws relating to those matters that the U.S. Constitution did not give to the federal government or deny to the states.

In the case of Lobato v. the State of Nevada, it is hard to see how someone could be convicted with evidence that does not make very much sense at all. My groups responsibility was to cover the prosecution side and five pieces of evidence of the case using the information from the news article by Joshua Longobardy titled, “Kirsten Blaise Lobato is accused in a gruesome slaying. Did she do it?”. Upon the detective arriving to the scene of the crime, they removed the debris that covered the body from complete view. This debris included a full sheet of cardboard with a bloody footprint on it and a clear plastic bag wrapped around the groin region. Once this was removed it was discovered that the penis had been sliced off from the base, as well as six of his teeth were found near his body. After several days they were able to identify the man as Duran Bailey, a 44-year-old black male. Another piece of evidence recovered at first with Baileys personal belongings was a piece of chewed gum. When the detectives called Lobato in for questioning, she gave them a statement of how she pulled a knife on a man who tried to attack her. This statement however was for a completely different altercation than what the police were questioning for. Other evidence that came into question were the tire impressions near the entrance of the enclosure, fingerprints lifted from the dumpster, and a foreign piece of hair on Baileys groin region. The argument being made from

the founding document of our nation’s laws and government. Within its texts, the Constitution outlines the operations and existence of all three branches of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, as well as their functions and interdependence. The constitution also includes the Bill of Rights, and all other amendments that serve as a basis for any law created in our country at either the federal or state level. While semi-extensive, the main rights we share are those from the bill of rights, which

The Nevada constitution and the US Constitution each grant or ban certain rights to its citizens, for example, in order for an amendment to be passed the US Constitution relies on two thirds of the Congress and three fourths of the state approval. Furthermore, the Nevada Constitution who only requires the legislative body and approval of the citizens in order for the change to be made. In addition, the state Constitution focuses mainly on limiting powers, rather than granting powers since all appointing official have been established. Finally, unlike the US Constitution who grants power to federal government, the state constitution grants power among their own state thus, protecting the citizens rights and freedom by lawgiving of

This paper is about Nevada’s government. It provides details into how Nevada became a state and when the Nevada constitution was created. My paper also explains what the governor of Nevada does and how his formal powers compare to those of the President. I will explain Nevada’s choice of having a direct democracy and what that actually entails. Finally, I will also provide a comparison of strengths and weaknesses in Nevada’s process in electing judges.

In addition, each state has their own constitution. Each state constitution is similar to the federal Constitution in that they provide for the organizational structure of the particular state's government, and all contain some measure of a state bill of rights. However, some state constitutions prohibit or limit certain laws or protections that are established in the Constitution.

Every state in the Union has created and implemented its own constitution. These constitutions provide the legal framework by which government operates. They also identify the specific role of government, and endow it with certain powers and authority. A constitution also creates a system for how power is to be delegated and distributed through the creation of branches and individual offices. Along with the authority it provides, constitutions create limits on this power of government, and establish checks and balances to further limit the scope of each individual branch and officeholder. Most importantly, constitutions provide unalienable rights to citizens that cannot be refused, or abridged by government. Each state’s constitution is different, however, all of them serve these functions, in order to, create a lasting government that acts in the best interests of its citizenry.

There are many different reasons a person can find themselves in a court as the defendant.

When the United States Constitution was established, the founding fathers devised the core of the court system that is present in today’s society. The state and federal government each have a version of a Supreme Court which is typically led by a Chief Justice. The states level Supreme Court Justice governs the issues that pertains to the citizens within the respective state. These individuals will also take part in hearings or proceedings that impact of law of the state and hear constitutional cases with regards to the state. On the federal side, a Supreme Court Chief Justice will operates more on a national