Miranda V. Arizona

Contention 1-
The majority does not perform the greatest ability to protect all members of a society. In the case of Miranda v Arizona, the courts had to decide whether or not a man was deprived of his freedoms while in police custody. Basically Miranda v Arizona completely changed the way police apprehend and interrogate suspects. However it was not only Miranda, but many other instances where the majority has not protected all minorities. Vignera v New York was another similar instance where a suspect was forced to sign statements and an inculpatory statement, while being questioned by police, without knowing he was entitled to legal representation. In California v Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for 5 days,
until he finally made an oral admission, all without being notified of his right to legal representation.
Bob Egelko states, "Following the Supreme Court's lead [of expanding rights through activism], lower courts have taken control of prisons and mental hospitals after finding that the state was failing to protect inmates, a vulnerable group, from abuse." For example, in Massachusetts, inmates in mental hospitals were not properly cared for, nor were the facilities up to state regulations. The state had refused to step-in and take control of a privately operated prison and mental patient facility, neglecting many inmates who were to be protected from only themselves.
Contention 2- The Constitution of the United States of America is intentionally vague, and therefore must be open to interpretation.
There are several reasons to why the Constitution is vague. The originally formed document by the founding fathers was the Articles of Confederation. This document lacked major things such as a Supreme Court, outlined basic rights of citizenship, and a central banking system. The states were not content with such a document, as they wanted a more integrated country. Quickly the founding fathers came back together to form the constitution we know today. They were sure to be very broad on this second draft. There are 2 reasons why. They felt if they were to explicit, the states would feel it too restrictive and not pass it. Then again if it was to broad, as the Articles of Confederation were, then once again, the states would not pass it. Therefore the fathers came to the basic Bill of Rights, and the catch-all Amendment 9, states rights. The framers completely intended on including this Amendment into the constitution, as they wanted a document that was stable, which could define central ideals, yet make them hard to change. This in turn created a document that can evolve over time, but keeping the original uniformed
intent. Now because the Constitution is inherently and intentionally vague there needs to be a branch of government to extrapolate specific rules and laws. This branch just happens to be the judiciary. Why the legislature cannot be this branch is simply because the legislature is too broad and takes too long. John Conyers has stated that, "senators don't really read the bills" presented before them, and Ron Paul, another senator stated, "laws are created very broad."
Contention 3-
Judicial activism protects minorities.
I'm not talking about just racial minorities, but every type of minority, from political to social minorities. Brown v. Board of Education is the most famous case of a minority gaining such massive rights at a single point in time. Separate cannot be equal was the line, and it still is the line which is remembered by all. Brown v. Board of Education was what brought about change in the nation, what has shaped it to the great country it is today. Kelo v. New London is another example of how judicial activism has given more opportunities. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that cities may take land and give it to corporate developers to aid in economic development. Kilo v. New London has completely changed the way communities can be developed, and how blighted areas can become an expansion to a booming metropolis. Another example of minority protection is simply the check the J.B. puts on the legislature. Today, republicans control the legislative branch and the executive branch. Thus meaning they are the majority. Republican's head the steering committee, which decides what will be on the voting calendar and when votes shall take place. The only remaining way for the democrats, the minority, to have their interests made to law is via the J.B. This is the way the democrats are doing it today as well. They have an issue, which can't be proposed in the legislature, so they go to the judicial branch. It's how republicans
will do it also, once they're in the minority. J.A. and the J.B. allow fair and equal access to all, who ever is in the minority.
Conclusion-
Today I have shown the why judicial activism is extremely necessary. I talked about the states refusing to aid their mentally impaired inmates, risking their lives, judicial activism keeps the Constitution moving forward as the nation moves forward, and finally, judicial activism protects all minorities. The Framers knew this country and what it would become, and they knew judicial activism would become a part of it.
Introduction-
Erwin Chermerinsky, Professor of Law at USC declares there is no correct way to interpret the Constitution. "There is no intrinsically legal or Constitutional answer to the question how should the constitution be interpreted."