ipl-logo

Pros And Cons To The Interpretation Of The Constitution

446 Words2 Pages

In chapter 1, Mr. Levin begins by summarizing the intentions of the Founding Fathers. The primary purpose as explained was to create a government that is very limited in its scope and size so it cannot overstep on the rights or prerogatives of the states or individual citizens alike. They also created the judiciary branch to stay separate from the legislative and executive branches, “With a narrow role and limited authority-a judiciary that respected, applied, and preserved the rule of law…(Levin.11).” The founding fathers would be “appalled” by our current judiciary. The book explains how they have severely overstepped their authority and now tell the people, and even the rest of the government what to do, as well as supporting foreign and …show more content…

Too the non-originalists (activists), the Constitution is a document like any other reference text, not the true law of our country, their interpretations span the distance of their imagination. “Judges are not to overturn the will of legislative majorities absenting violation of a constitutional right, as those rights were understood by the framers,” Robert Bork(Levin.13). The biggest difference is originalists interpret the law based on the provisions of the constitution to advance social good or fix an actual injustice; whereas the activists interpret the law based on the desired outcome they want. Four examples of activists gaining their result by ignoring mandates or unsurprising legislative authority are Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, and Roe v. Wade. Justice Taney in decision of Dred Scott made up his own facts to say the it was clear in the constitution that only whites were citizens therefore loosing Scott his right to sue for freedom. Taney also summarized that slaves were property and cited the Fifth Amendment to claim it would be unconstitutional to ban slavery in the Louisiana

Show More
Related
1023 Words | 5 Pages

When people think of how government works, unless they’ve taken a government class, they usually think of Congress making laws and the President doing pretty much everything else. No one pays much attention to the Supreme Court unless there is a landmark case or something else to grab the news — like the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the Supreme Court does much more than you’d think regarding keeping the political machine running like a well-oiled … machine. Through not only interpretation of the law, but also judicial activism, the Supreme Court shows it can have as much influence over the laws of the land as either of the other branches of the federal government. In this paper, I will analyze the decision-making methods of the Court using the cases of Gideon v. Wainwright and Betts v. Brady.

Read More
550 Words | 3 Pages

The problems lied in the misinterpretation of the clauses that were present in the Constitution, that “was made by the people and for the people; and to the people, while also stating that, “the sovereign power in [the] confederacy, we appeal from this decision. They understand the charter of their liberties, we hope, full well enough to rebuke and defeat, at the polls, this effort to give the whole country up to the domination of the slave power.” This quote supports the political lens as the start of the Civil War because the Constitution is being referred to as an entity, and shows that slavery was a product of legal disputes and restrictions of protecting those who were not looked upon as valuable or human. Lastly, a drawback of this piece of evidence could be the writer is not a witness, nor a Judge of the Supreme Court, so he cannot recount all the factors that were taken into consideration during the

Read More
1028 Words | 5 Pages

Eventually, the court ruled in favor of Sandford in which Taney wrote the majority opinion. Addressing Scott’s right as a citizen, Taney stated that because the country's founders thought of African Americans having “no rights which a white man was bound to respect” the concluded that Dred Scott did not have the right to sue in court as he was not considered a citizen under the U.S constitution. Also, the justice stated that although Scott had lived in a non-slave state, he could not be considered free as he said, “his status, as a free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri.” Lastly, Justice Taney addressed the Missouri Compromise’s restriction of slavery throughout the country as unconstitutional as it did not follow the fifth amendment. Due to slaves being considered property, Congress could not ban slavery in the country.

Read More
1538 Words | 7 Pages

Conversely, in his opinion for the Marbury v. Madison case, Chief Justice John Marshall interpreted the power of judicial review expressed in the constitution differently. He understood the court’s ability to “strike down” legislation as the command of the majority, which was embedded in the Constitution (O’Brien 173). This essay will analyze the juxtaposition between Alexander Hamilton’s blueprint for the Supreme Court in Federalist No. 78 and Chief Justice John Marshall’s

Read More
668 Words | 3 Pages

1. Personally, I believe the constitution was the better document because it had more power. The articles of confederation gave the states more power than congress had, and because of this states either did was it said or did not. Because of the states having more power over Congress, the states did not focus on the needs of the whole country but only cared for their own state and what is best for their people. The constitution is better because it was easier to make changes and amendments to it.

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
907 Words | 4 Pages

Because Taney was stating that Scott did not have citizenship due to his African heritage, he did not have a right to sue in a United States court of any kind. Therefore, the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over this case (Pearson Education Inc. 2008). Taney took his ruling one step further and decided that since slaves were considered property, they were protected under the Fifth Amendment. Property rights cannot be denied without due process (Independence Hall Association 2013). Taney argued that it was therefore unconstitutional for any state to make a law taking away another person's property, in this case their slaves.

Read More
1626 Words | 7 Pages

The United States Constitution has created much debate since the moment it was conscripted. It has been argued that Constitution of the United States is a document that was drafted in response to the evolution of society. Others have argued that the creation of the Constitution was made as an effort to create a strong national government that was capable of exercising real authority and preservation of ideals in the revolution. The American Constitution is seen as being reactionary because the founders of the Constitution wanted to react to change in restoration of the previous state. The U.S. Constitution is considered reactionary because one should consider the events, documents, and people who participated in the era of the Constitution.

Read More
1426 Words | 6 Pages

For the issue of first question it was ruled that Dred Scott could not sue, because he was not a citizen of Missouri, and therefore courts had no jurisdiction. Chief Taney stated that no “negro”, not even a freeman could be a citizen under the constitution. Third question that Taney claimed was the question of whether the Missouri Compromise was constitutional or not, in which Taney goes on to say that Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. (Klingaman 28) This was the second time that the Supreme Court used its power of Judicial Review to find a federal congressional act unconstitutional.

Read More
1570 Words | 7 Pages

The court was charged with the protection of these liberties as an independent body able to declare violations of the constitution from Congress. Hamilton made the assurance in Federalist No. 78 that ultimately the constitution will be the supreme law of the land and that the court would respect the will of the people. He explains the court as the arbiter between Congress and the people. Therefore, the courts will check Congress by making sure the laws written by them did not abuse the power granted to them under the constitution. For Hamilton, the purpose of judicial review was for the court to eventually place the will of the people above both Congress and the court.

Read More
1368 Words | 6 Pages

The United States Constitution is a remarkable document. A daring experimentation in democracy, in which it has proved both solid and adjustable enough to survive 230 years and remain operative in a world different from the one in which it was written. The United States Constitution, officially took place on September 17, 1787, in which it established America’s national government and foundational laws. The charter guaranteed essential rights for its citizens. It was signed at the Second Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

Read More
875 Words | 4 Pages

The Framers thought majority rule to be the best system of government, but they also knew it was imperfect. They understood that political majorities may be tempted to enact laws that establish their own authority. Framers intended courts to play a central role in addressing these concerns. When supporters of the original Constitution argued in 1789 that a bill of rights would be pointless because political majorities would step on its guarantees, Thomas Jefferson responded that this argument ignored “the legal check” that could be exercised by the courts. When the Framers said "Men” in the Constitution it often meant males only.

Read More
1324 Words | 6 Pages

Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

Read More
649 Words | 3 Pages

Dred Scott's was so controversial it went up to the Supreme Court. Many abolitionist believed that Dred would win and were astonished when he did not win. Abolitionist were outraged that Chief Justice Robert Taney ruled that African Americans had no rights and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The decision made abolitionist furious the abolitionist wanted to continue their efforts to free slaves. According to Chief Justice Roger Taney of the Supreme Court on his decision on whether to allow African Americans able to be involved in politics, "They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, whether in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" ( Document G ).

Read More

More about Pros And Cons To The Interpretation Of The Constitution

Related Topics

Open Document