ipl-logo

Judicial Restraint Vs. Judicial Activism

557 Words3 Pages

Judicial activism v. Judicial restraint
The constitution can be interpreted in two different ways, one way is through Judicial restraint and the other is through Judicial activism. Judicial restraint is one of the two ways the Constitution can be interpreted. Is is strict and detailed and it was created by the founding fathers. It was not intended to be changed or added to. However, judicial activism is the other way the Constitution can be interpreted and differs from Judicial restraint because unlike judicial restraint, it changes along with society and can be changed and added to. Judicial activism changes with society like mentioned already so therefore is more effective and up to date. While Judicial restraint is good to use when a law …show more content…

Judicial activism influences court cases because justices are more likely to declare laws and policies as unconstitutional. When the affordable care act was decided to be invalidated, that was an example of judicial activism. Judicial activism has been a part of the constitution for 70 years. It is important when a judge has good reason to ignore the judgment or fairness of the majority. The only reason this wouldn't work would be if a law is clearly unconstitutional. Judicial restraint is only used when a law is clearly unconstitutional. The 1824 Gibbons v. Ogden case is known for its judicial restraint. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. While this case used judicial restraint to re establish powers given to congress by the constitution times have changed and they need to be ruled on through judicial activism.
Dred Scott v. Sanford used Judicial restriction to uphold slavery this shows Judicial activism is important because if it was used in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case, slavery may have been viewed as unconstitutional. If judicial activism was used this moral choice would have been the

Show More
Related
710 Words | 3 Pages

Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.

Read More
1518 Words | 7 Pages

In addition to upholding the prior Court decision from Texas v. Johnson, the United States v. Eichman ruling also reflects judicial restraint because it adhered strictly to the Constitution. To exemplify, the First Amendment in the Constitution directly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of

Read More
933 Words | 4 Pages

Woodrow Wilson once referred to the Supreme Court as “a constant constitutional convention in continuous session”, due to the role they have played in interpreting the constitution as it is written. Due to the ambiguity found in much of the phrasing in the constitution, judicial interpretation of the constitution can be considered both necessary and inevitable (Comer, Gruhl et al., 2001). The courts have the power to declare unconstitutional the actions of the other branches and units of the government in what is known as judicial review (Tannahil, 2002). The first case in which the court elaborated on the principle of judicial review was that of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and put forward that in the case of conflict between the constitution and a statute, it is “the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (Smith, 1975). Following this, the case of Fletcher v Peck (1810) is of equal importance as it was the first case in which a state law was declared by the court to be unconstitutional.

Read More
797 Words | 4 Pages

On the other hand, Marshall ruled the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be “an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive” (Marbury v. Madison, history.com). In spite of settling this dispute, ultimately, the Supreme Court elevated and contributed to its power by establishing its right to judicial review of laws made by Congress, that power not implicitly included in the Constitution beforehand (Marbury v. Madison, www.inspireeducators.com). All things considered, the Marbury v. Madison case granted the Supreme Court of the United States (S.C.O.T.U.S.) the power of judicial review, therefore allowing the Court to declare laws passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. This had and still has a tremendous and significant impact on the United States because if not for it, the laws passed could not be declined or conferred further about, or in other words, struck down and reviewed. Our judicial system would be limited.

Read More
792 Words | 4 Pages

From the onset of Texas’ introduction into the United States in the mid 1800s, cotton farming was an important engine for the state economy such as much of the south during that era. Many of the first people to settle in Texas at the time of annexation emigrated from states below the Mason-Dixon Line and had brought with them, the production of cotton, as would be expected. In addition, ranching also played a key role in the financial progress of the state. Throughout the 1800s and into the early 1900s, this trend continued and grew stronger with developments such as the railroad and other new technologies which allowed cotton to be harvested in a more efficient manner. The construction of railroads was particularly important because of the lacking infrastructure within the vast state for reliable transportation.

Read More
648 Words | 3 Pages

The system of checks and balances is meant to even power within the Federal Government, but within we know it has its flaws. The judiciary has the least power of them all it is meant to evaluate laws that have been challenged. Executive carries out laws whereas the legislative makes laws. The formation of interest groups and the actions taken by the public greatly impact the power of the judiciary branch as well. Alexander Hamilton 's Federalist NO. 78 paper describes the correct reasoning of as to why the judicial branch has the least power of all

Read More
1067 Words | 5 Pages

Ultimately, the judicial branch has to go back to what the founding fathers intended for the court’s purpose and to use the power accordingly. To maintain the strength of the branch, the courts must think about what is constitutionally right. Their decisions should reflect the amendments as well. “Judicial power plays an important role in the rule of law, even while it comes frequently into tension with norms of democratic rule” (Friedman & Delaney, 2011, p. 57, para. 1). This is the only way that citizens will feel like their rights are truly protected.

Read More
499 Words | 2 Pages

If the legislative branch would at any time overstep their limits, the judicial department would keep it in check. If the United States goes beyond its influences, if and try to make a law in which the Constitution does not authorize, it is invalid by definition and the judicial power, the Supreme Court Judges, who are in place to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. “On the other hand, if the states go beyond their limits, if they make a law which

Read More
2308 Words | 10 Pages

Mark Sutherland 's Judicial Tyranny is destined to be a classic, and unlike similar well-written books by Mark Levin and Pat Robertson, Sutherland 's book is unique: it is hard-hitting and much more multi-faceted on the issues it covers. Additionally, it represents a profound cooperative effort by a potentate of conservative luminaries from James

Read More
617 Words | 3 Pages

Due to precautions put in place to prevent them from interfering, the Federal Government can only exert a certain amount of authority in a court of law. In most cases, the first consideration is whether something exceeds the stated powers of the national government rather than whether it infringes on someone's

Read More
531 Words | 3 Pages

Judicial review is when the actions of the legislative and executive branches are to be reviewed in, which may invalidate the decisions the other branches have passed. The case of Gideon v. Wainwright was in 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, all in favor, for Gideon’s argument. This case gave defendants the right to have a court appointed attorney if the defendant is unable to afford one, instead of representing themselves. When Gideon faced jail time he studied the law, and began a petition; however, the Florida Supreme Court denied it.

Read More
1014 Words | 5 Pages

Essentially, judicial restraint works to preserve the laws already in place and refrain from making significant changes to public policies. But much like judicial activism, judicial restraint isn’t perfect; the major flaw of judicial restraint is that it does

Read More
263 Words | 2 Pages

The purpose of the dissent serves in furthering justice is to inform opinions to justify whether each case is constitutional or unconstitutional. For example, in the court case of Mapp v. Ohio, the dissenting opinion of the case is when the Supreme Court justice believes that pictures will be used against Mapp; however, the law enforcement did not refer back to the Constitution. There are cases today where police enforcement violates private affairs and searched without consent. Another important mark in history of important dissents is the court decision between Roe vs. Wade because of the overwhelming controversial issue that remains unsettled about abortion. Roe used the idea of the Fourth Amendment to justify the right to choose to terminate an unwanted or a medically dangerous pregnancy.

Read More
741 Words | 3 Pages

Robert Isenhour Federal Government 110 10/10/17 Judicial Review Judicial Review had been obsolete until 1803 when the need for it arose in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where it was then found to become a new component to the Judicial Branch. I am here to discuss why judicial review is and shall remain a doctrine commonly used in constitutional law. Judicial Review is the power for courts to review other government branches to determine the validity of its actions whether it be constitutional or unconstitutional. These ‘acts’ can be described as legislation passed by congress, presidential orders and actions, or all state and local governmental actions.

Read More
429 Words | 2 Pages

Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.

Read More

More about Judicial Restraint Vs. Judicial Activism

Related Topics

Open Document