The solution to this problem is the Supreme Court. When circuit courts are divided on a specific issue, like in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the Supreme Court’s ruling resolves the issue. Once the Court releases its decision, that ruling is the nationwide interpretation of the law, which thus applies to all citizens equally. Unlike Hosanna-Tabor where the district courts were split pretty evenly, sometimes there is a clear majority of how the circuit courts rule. In resolving a conflict between the courts, the Supreme Court should not take into consideration how many courts supported each side. The justices should focus on the words and meaning of the law themselves.

Every bill which shall have passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which is shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

To enforce this section of our Constitution, the President should not be permitted to say, “I agree with every piece of this bill except this specific part” and still be able to approve it. If a Signing Statement is needed, the most reasonable solution is for the bill to be returned and reconstructed so that a statement isn’t needed. In doing so, one is able to preserve the validity of the bill itself and at the same time, benefit those who encounter the bill in situations like M.B.Z. v. Clinton. With this being considered, the Court would not even have to contemplate whether or not they have the power to declare the President has acted unconstitutionally by not enforcing part of a law pursuant to a Signing Statement. Although, if Signing Statements are considered constitutional, there has to be some type of guidelines associated with them. It is important to note that Signing Statements have been around for a long time. Several sources trace them all the way back to James Monroe. The controversy associated with Signing Statements, which is particularly prevalent with Signing Statements issued by President Bush, lies in the content of the statements.

Students without any criminal backgrounds should not be treated the same way as dangerous criminals who have been found guilty of crimes.  I think this because students do not know as much information about life as most adults do.  Therefor, the punishment for doing something bad should not be as bad as it would be for grown adults.

One must assume that the ‘violent Ku Klux Klan problems in the South after the Civil War’ is referring to the problems that the United States had with policemen, judges, mayors, etc. being racist and siding with the KKK so much that it sometimes interfered with court cases and arrests. More than likely, most of the officials that were accused of such acts were granted immunity, and the cases probably never became popular news.