Explain Should The Supreme Court's Power Of Judicial Review Be Strictly By A Constitutional Amendment
Should the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment?
The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review should not be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment because the simple fact what if you do a judgment that they are not in the right of? If the judge is proved wrong then it will be appealed. For an example we the people shouldn’t be judged because what if one commits the same crime and does it intentionally such as killing someone and then someone does it to protect them and their family from harm if someone broke into their home and was coming at them and the only thing was to kill them to keep from getting their children or self harmed.
The cons of this is that what if we are
wanting a law passed and it gets rejected and we the voters can’t have any say of it. For example switching books in the schools for more modern technology like Ipads what if the children don’t understand the work very well and needs more studying time, they won’t be allowed to take them home. They should make the law of going back to older days when all the technology wasn’t out just books, pencils, and paper!
The pros is that the Judicial branch can have the power to view the laws of the other two branches and has an important role playing of the check and balancing system.
So when you sit down and think about it its like they are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. They are sometimes to many decisions and too many judges at one time.
Levin-Waldman, O. M. (2012). American government. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc
The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review should not be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment because the simple fact what if you do a judgment that they are not in the right of? If the judge is proved wrong then it will be appealed. For an example we the people shouldn’t be judged because what if one commits the same crime and does it intentionally such as killing someone and then someone does it to protect them and their family from harm if someone broke into their home and was coming at them and the only thing was to kill them to keep from getting their children or self harmed.
The cons of this is that what if we are
wanting a law passed and it gets rejected and we the voters can’t have any say of it. For example switching books in the schools for more modern technology like Ipads what if the children don’t understand the work very well and needs more studying time, they won’t be allowed to take them home. They should make the law of going back to older days when all the technology wasn’t out just books, pencils, and paper!
The pros is that the Judicial branch can have the power to view the laws of the other two branches and has an important role playing of the check and balancing system.
So when you sit down and think about it its like they are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. They are sometimes to many decisions and too many judges at one time.
Levin-Waldman, O. M. (2012). American government. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc