What was the effect of the civil rights decisions of the supreme court under chief justice earl warren? who was affected by these decisions?

The Warren Court ended segregation in schools and transformed numerous aspects of US law, especially with regard to the rights of the accused, ended public school prayer, and demanded the adoption of electoral proportionality rules of the type "one man, one vote".

It made the Court a more balanced center of power in front of the Congress and the Presidency, especially through four sentences in paradigmatic cases: Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

With all these measures, the Warren Court was setting a precedent, by changing the way of understanding and interpreting the Constitution. Until then, the Supreme Court had always considered that its duty to ensure the Constitution consisted exclusively of maintaining the sacrosanct separation of powers, preventing the executive power, mainly, from exceeding its functions. This position, in many cases, meant preventing the approval of legislation of a social nature, as happened during the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, on the grounds that it escaped the competence of the presidency. But, after Warren's mandate, the Court went on to read the Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights not as a mere regulation designed to protect the separation of powers and limit federal authority, but as the guarantee of rights and freedoms of the American citizens. This interpretation continues to be the majority today.

the  seven  days  battles  were  a series of seven battles over seven  days from june 25 to july 1, 1862, near richmond, virginia,  during  the american civil war. the  seven  days ended with mcclellan's army in relative safety next to the james river, having suffered almost 16,000 casualtiesduring  the retreat.

separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.   the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  

the traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of american government are:

* the legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.

* the executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.

* the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches:   legislative, executive and judicial.   california illustrates this approach; "the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.   persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this constitution."

while separation of powers is key to the workings of american government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. as a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict

minnesota:   minnesota house research,   separation of powers: when statutes and court rules conflict, 2005