Comparison Nevada and Us Constitution
Yet when the workings of the legislative, executive, and judicial systems are investigated, it is clear that Nevada’s state constitution deviates dramatically from the U. S. Constitution. While both share these three separate designations of political power, and while there is the unstated intention that these branches are intended to keep the other within check, there are differences which suggest a greater degree of democratic control over each area therein. A topical example is in the judicial system; currently, the Bush Administration is seeking to replace one of the members of the Supreme Court.
Under the U. S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired.
This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process. In Nevada, in contrast, the State Supreme Court uses a “staggered” system in order to appoint their judges. The judges are selected not by presidential appointment but by “qualified electors of the State at the general election,” and are only allowed to hold their office for a limited period of years. Furthermore, the Chief Justice is only allowed to maintain their post for six years, thus reducing the opportunity to shape the direction of the state’s laws throughout the remainder of their lives.
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 to head various divisions and political positions. Many of these positions comprise his “cabinet,” and there is a tendency for this cabinet to make decisions according to the will of the Administration.
Indeed, an argument could be made that appointing cabinet heads helps ensure a body of political leaders who are predisposed to favor the president in his decision-making processes as opposed to questioning them, and those who differ from the president’s perspectives are more likely to be excluded from the political cabinet: this was readily apparent in the decision of Colin Power to step down as Secretary of State after his opinions concerning the direction of the Bush Administration were dismissed.
In Nevada, the Governor does have the ability to “fill vacancies” in high political positions, but this is only a stopgap solution to help keep the position occupied until there is another means of replacing the official. Often, this is found in the form of an election or “granting a commission,” and the candidate needs to be assessed according to his or her qualifications.
However, aside from this contingency, elections are used to fill such positions. References Constitution of the State of Nevada, The. (2005) Author. Acquired 3 October 2005 at http://www. leg. state. nv. us/Const/NvConst. html White House, The. (2005) “The United States Constitution. ” Acquired 3 October 2005 at http://www. house. gov/Constitution/Constitution. html