Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Over the past few years, government workers of the United States have moved into a state of relative liberation. This doctrine can largely be said to have been caused by the legal and judicial practices as well as, the political efforts that have further driven the development of a modern militancy on the part of authorities. The overall effect of this privilege is that the president and other Executive branch members in the government; can overrule or resist certain subpoenas and policies made by the judicial and legislative arms of the government. However this privilege is not documented and accounted for in the United Nations constitution, but was put in place by the supreme court as a measure to help separate the powers held by the different arms of the administrative system. However the legitimacy of the privilege depends on an individual case where it is established by the prosecutor; especially in matters where the supervision of the executive would interfere or influence the security concerns of the given federal branch.
The doctrine of privilege was reversed because; it gave unlimited powers to the executive arm of the government; which is not responsible for the enforcement of the law and other policies. The fact that the executive could overrule the decisions of the other two arms of the government would further mean that the power of the state would only lie with the executive. The ultimate defect of allowing the powers to be left with one arm of the government would be that; the executive would impair cases that were of interest to the National security of the nation. The other claim is that the powers bestowed by the given privilege on the executive; would mean that the process of evidence discovery and information sharing between the different arms on matters of national interest would be affected. However the doctrine of privilege still prevails in matters that infringed the general interest of the American people and where justice administration was under threat. An example of the impacts of this privilege was the release of classified information documents to the defense counsel of the Oregon-based Islamic charity case; that was seen as a great compromise to the national security system.
The basic principles of the Pendleton Act of 1883 drafted by the New York civil service commission; were basically geared towards reforming the administration of civil service administration. The principles were meant to limit the excessive misuse of power, and were also to play the role of limiting the unfair practices that were being practiced especially on matters of employee recruitment. The Act had the principle of ensuring that there was the installation of a system of competitive scrutiny of individuals, in filling up federal civil service posts so as to ensure that the civil service was not utilized for the political interests of certain officers. Initially only 10 percent of the number of federal positions was selected based on critical examination; leaving the rest to the choice of individuals and affiliated groups. The act also sought to address the political removal of federal employees from posts of work; due to politically motivated reasons. This was achieved through an order that provided that the removal of civil service personnel could only be done based on just reasons; which were officially presented in writing before the removal was executed. It also provided that the removal of employees would be preceded by a written explanation of the causes of dis-employment; and that they were entitled to the making of a reply concerning the case. It also held the principle that the world war two victims were to get jobs in the civil service, and provided for the thirty-day suspension of workers based on personnel-related violations among other actions.
The civil service reform act led to the development of a system that would be used in the resolving of disputes. This involved the formation of unions and employment agencies that would help protect the rights of employees and manage the difficulties of tenure administration. The act provided that recruitment would be merit-based covering the different groups in society depending on the knowledgeability of the candidates and equal opportunity. The preference hiring of family members was prohibited; and it also created the provision for the removal of employees who proved inadequate in performance. The act also sought to establish a more flexible public service administration; that allowed for the formation of rules to govern the course of service. The act also provided that civil workers especially those within the classified service could turn to any independent administrative court, to petition actions taken against them. Finally, the labor relations agency was established to oversee the processes of dispute resolution and collective advocating of the workers rights and dispositions.
The interpretation of the Pickering v. Board of Education case is that; the lack of substantial evidence to the knowledge or recklessness of employees in making wrong statements to do with public importance; would not lead to the loss of employment positions. This interpretation holds that employees have the right to speak on matters of administration and policy enforcement where they find acts of injustice, or gaps in action provided they do not do that with malicious or individualistic interests.
Connick V. Myers 1983 was a case between a junior Attorney who rejected the change of the section of the court in which cases would be heard. After that she wrote a questionnaire to other attorneys practicing at the same level as hers; about the transfer policy; the need for a grievance committee; and on matters of confidence in their supervisors. After making this move the seniors were furious and discharged her for failing to accept the transfer and insubordination. Due to this she appealed to the District Court that she had wrongfully been discharged; and after consideration into the case she was reinstated and given back pay damages among other fees. This case was resolved due to the fact that an employees freedom of speech is arrived at; after balancing the personal interests and the public concern in a given action. This is the case because the interest of the state as an employer was promoted in the attempt, to make the public service more efficient through the given employee.
Rankin v. McPherson is a Supreme Court ruling as to whether the first amendment defends public employees who make severely serious comments about the President. The courts ruled out that protection would not extend to statements that are threatening to the president, but an extreme statement on matters of public interest by an employee without policy-making mandates and no public involvement would be protected.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.