The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution as it pertains to each case before the court. These decisions then affect public policy and application of the laws. Sometimes laws can be rendered nullified or unenforceable. In some newer cases that deal with internet or other technologies not present at the time of creation, extend beyond the reach of the Constitution, the Supreme Court must interpret how the Constitutional laws should affect the case. This affects the way U. S. society sees the Constitution as it pertains to them.…
United States Supreme Court cases are argued and decided on Constitutional grounds. All arguments and decisions are based on interpretations of the original Constitution and, more often, on Constitutional amendments.…
He argues that a proper use of “substantive due process,” with an understanding of natural rights as expressed in the Declaration, will guarantee individual liberty, and while he may be right he countermands himself in a way in which he tries to stop the expansion of government and thus shrink it. His solution instead would expand certain aspects of power that the federal government…
One does not need to be a genius, but if in a situation where several team up they can create something just as brilliant. The constitution’s brilliance of never ending relevance starts with its limitations of government but still being able to be amended, there are three methods in which the constitution sought to limit the area of power in the three organs of government, all through the bill of rights, system of checks and balances, and federalism. Are we not, one nation that takes pride in equality, not only with other nations but internally as well? As a collective, we consistently change; therefore the option to have a system to change with us is of paramount importance; in which our constitution fulfills this need.…
According to the attitudinal model, Justices cannot be constrained by Congress nor the Executive branch, this constraint caused proponents to resist opposing results by those testing the rational choice to determine if the Justices act strategically in predicting congressional responses (Segal & Spaeth, 2002). “Scholars typically gravitate toward one of two opposing views about how justices make their decisions. On one side, attitudinalists argue that “institutional features designed to secure judicial independence ... ensure that the Justices can give their ideological preferences ‘free play’ and ‘base their decisions solely upon personal policy preferences (Rohde and Spaeth 1976, 72).” The attitudinal perception supports the idea that legal boundaries which give way to accurate interpretations of the law, which are believed to be useless in the Court’s decisions (Baum, 1994).…
Maryland verdict, which permitted broad interpretation of the Constitution and allowed the government to adjust and amend their practices in order to benefit the country in the best way possible. When the Framers first created and organized the American government, they desired to create a constitution “intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequentially, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs” (Levy 1707). In order to guarantee that the government would always maintain power as time went on and situations changed, the authors of the Constitution decided to include the Elastic Clause. This vague clause would allow Congress to perform any actions that seemed necessary in order to preserve the country and protect the rights of the people. Additionally, the authors of the Constitution arranged for an official, complex amending process within the construction of the government in order to allow it to adapt to the times (Gillman 1632). Giving this amending power to the leadership of the country helped to institute new laws throughout American history that the Framers never needed to address initially. Despite the intentions to create an administration that promised equal rights to all American citizens, the original Constitution actually discriminated against a large portion of people living in America at the time. Indigenous Native…
I believe the United States should reform its governing institutional structures because democracy does not take a great part of it as much as it implies. Through my understanding of the regulation of life in the United States, I have come to realize that it is more of a republican than it is a democratic structure. James Madison, known as “the father of the constitution”, designed the institutional structure to be separated within a form of distribution of powers. Even though Madison’s whole idea of disallowing tyranny through this system is understandable, it has created a major dilemma. This allocation of power has caused a slow and time-consuming flow in the process of taking action. The fear of tyranny has caused…
Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth President of the United States who freed the slaves from a complex issue that the country was facing. Lincoln views on ending slavery was very conservative because he believed that the compensated emancipation would change the revolution. Lincoln had a strong opinion about changing politics to transform people’s social life. Lincoln was “the greatest social and political revolution of the age” (McPherson), because Lincoln released the emancipation proclamation in which he declares all slaves free, it caused the start of the Civil War. The outcome was two major points of view whereas in provoking the rights of revolution, and the abolition of slavery to destroy the social structure.…
Loose constructionism has a more profound interpretation of the Constitution. With Loose constructionism there’s more room to determine what the words would mean if it were to be applied to today's world.…
In analyzing the views of the Marbury vs. Madison case one can tell that after analyzing the documents that the case resulted in puzzlement of Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. In the year of 1803 the Marbury vs. Madison case raised the question of if the Supreme Court should have the authority to overturn unconstitutional federal laws. Yes, the Supreme Court should have the authority to overturn unconstitutional federal laws. According to Article III Section 2 of the constitution, The Supreme Court is deemed the right to scrutinize a law established by Congress if it is deemed unconstitutional as document F supports. When applying this statement to the case, the conflict originated from whether the Supreme Court was able to deem Marbury’s wish constitutional or unconstitutional. Marbury’s argument in this case was that he was obligated to his position as justice of peace because the President nominated him and the Senate confirmed his commission. This is true, Marbury was entitled to his appointment as justice of peace, but the Supreme Court was not the place where Marbury was able to get relief for his request. Since the Supreme Court has the right to reject a law that does not agree with the Constitution, the nation’s highest law, the act is invalid. This supports the claim made by Hamilton in Document B. As Hamilton implied, this strips the judicial branch of its power and gives more power to the other branches and the Supreme Court. On the whole this weakens the judicial branch and allows it to become the “least dangerous branch”. In conclusion Marbury was entitled to his position and the evidence supported his claim. But due to the fact that the Supreme Court was deemed the power, like stated in Document J, to state that the law being used as his verification was unconstitutional, Marbury and others appointed to government post where in lack of their Justice.…
Posner bashes Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner’s then-newly released book Reading Law, as well as condemning the practice of original textualism. To begin, Posner criticizes the Scalia’s clam that original textualism is neutral; offering the interpretation that because Scalia says that it is an “objective interpretive methodology” thus the practice is a kind of ideology. Posner continues, suggesting that because judges are not historians, judgment based on original historical context is flawed and can lead to omittance of pertinent information. In fact Posner shows that omittance of information is also not an uncommon practice throughout the book, for, many cases presented and quotes are lacking important information that, if included, wouldn’t support original textualism like Scalia and Garner present them as. Proceeding to call out the authors, Posner draws attention to the fact that dictionary definitions don’t necessary define words in the fullest respect that the writer meant the words as, by citing case information that was omitted from the book. Posner elaborates by explaining that in laws, words are often used to explain a larger concept/idea vaguely, which makes it illogical to determine the definition of a word without referencing a definition from the original author, and in the case that no original definition is provided, its only logical to take the law in context with the…
Question: First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders' words mean what they say or is it a living document to be applied flexibly, according to changing circumstances?…
views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole,…
The Constitution of the United States explicates the enumerated powers that the people have granted to their public administration. A narrow interpretation of the Constitution would mean denying the government the powers granted to them to keep order, equality, and fairness. An expanded interpretation would "extend words beyond their natural and obvious import, and we might question the application of the term " (244). It is the government's responsibility to exercise powers that cannot be exercised by its governed people. There are no guidelines in the Constitution's composition that discloses how to interpret the language; therefore, it is in the hands of three federal branches of government to decipher the Constitutions meaning.…
I believe that the judicial restraint philosophy is more appropriate for federal judges to follow because, unlike judicial activism, it does not allow judges to expand vague Constitutional principles to fit their own viewpoint and principles. Judicial restraint does not authorize judges to interpret Constitutional texts and laws (conservative or liberal interpretation) in order to serve their own principles, policies, and considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society. The judicial restraint policy also ensures that separation of powers is applied justly so that different branches of government do not intervene with the power of the other branch. Also, because the Stare Decisis has a huge impact on future decisions and precedent,…