Pros And Cons Of Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism is a type of judicial review where they are more likely to consider constitutional issues rather than executive or legislative action. Since the legislature makes laws in favor of the majority, Judicial Activism provides protection against unjust laws for those in the minority. This phrase was first used by an American Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. , in an 1947 article in Fortune magazine. Judicial Restraint is a type of approach to judicial review where the judges will make their decisions based on what the Framers would have done. They will also be hesitant to remove laws that are obviously unconstitutional. The phrase Judicial Restraint was first used in Fletcher v. Peck in 1810. I believe that Judicial Activism

Abortion is a rather new problem to the U.S. that has torn the country apart. It is a very touchy subject that will always be debated. Judicial Activism was used to try to solve the debate about abortion. In Roe v. Wade which stated the laws against abortion were illegal because they violated a person's right to privacy. It's hard to say what is right exactly because there is no drawn out line for everyone to see. I believe judicial activism is a great approach to this, because modern problems require modern solutions. Judges of today can't look back and think of what the framers would have done, abortion in the 1700s was a common thing women would do. It wasn't seen as a problem like it is today. As the U.S. grows everything will become more complex, like the way abortion went from a common thing to how it is a very touchy subject

This has always been a problem but it is at its peak currently. Judicial activism is a great approach to this also, as it is a modern problem. Yes, guns have been around for ages, but it wasn't a huge deal until you could fire 600 rounds per minute out of one gun. This didn't happen until the very late 1800s during the Spanish American War, where the Maxim machine gun was first used in battle. It was a compact water cooled fully automatic gun that was developed in England. Today weapons are associated with murder and other crimes, but this is a very difficult subject to talk about. The right to bear arms is one of our amendments, but it is a broad statement considering how many types of guns there are in today's world. The framers left that up for the future judges to decide, but it's very difficult to even make decisions on it because of how divided everyone is. Yet we hear new statements everyday of banning some related to guns. The most recent one being, banning pistol braces. It's a new project that the ATF is working to get to pass through the courts. I dont think the framers planned on guns to be this developed, thats why i think we need modern solutions and we can't look back to think what the framers would have done to control the problems associated with