In our world today we have many facilities, organizations, and unions but a controversial one today is the ACLU which stands for American Civil Liberties Union. According to http://action.aclu.org. For almost 100 years the ACLU has worked to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the U.S. The ACLU is a non-profit organization. They have worked hard to change policies and help America in many situations.
In terms of judicial activism, the Supreme Court is seen as an equal branch of government instead of being the referee between the other two branches and only stepping in when needed. An activist court does better when there are active movements on the rise, and there definitely is a strong movement promoting
The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications.
There are no power in the system provided to correct their construction, means that if the legislature passed any laws, they have the final authority of saying it is unconstitutional. In addition to, the judges have no laws by saying them doing the wrong thing of taking citizen’s rights. In my viewpoint, the federalist paper support this argument. For example,“ The judiciary...may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgement” The legislative controls the command of the purse, and executive holds the sword of the community. Every Branch of the government should have equal responsibility of ensuring bill that passed into laws that are constitutional.
The argument/famous Supreme Court case Madison vs. Marbury asked us the question should the Judicial Branch be able to declare laws unconstitutional. I think the Judicial Branch should be able to declare a law unconstitutional. I believe this because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money. The Judicial Branch is so small.
This is evident since the judicial branch cannot enforce power, it cannot approach matters, but matters have to seek the judiciary, and public opinion influences the court’s decisions to a great extent. When the President and Congress think that
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.
Taking a significant step away from the Framers’ vision of the judiciary and stepping closer toward a politicized Supreme Court that acts as a super-legislature and super-regulator; Massachusetts v EPA, in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court stepping closer toward a politicized Supreme Court that acts as a super-legislature and super-regulator (p. 176, Rosenbloom, 2015, Vicara, 2017). In this decision, the Court substituted its judgment for that of the politically accountable branches of the federal government. In doing so, the Court undermined the legal rules of standing. The majority also supported its decision with a one-sided and unsophisticated account of the scientific evidence for the petitioners’ claims concerning climate change, needlessly
Hamilton stated that the Judiciary branch is the least hazardous to the political rights that the judicial branch possess only the power to judge, not to act on its rulings and it hinges on the executive branch to carry out its orders. The judicial branch will succeed due in part to its own neutrality so they can grant fair and unbiased rulings. Political rights are least threatened by the judicial branch due in part to its inability to control either the monetary funds or the military of the country. The judicial branch has no power over the writing of laws or the enforcement of them which allows for it to be completely neutral in its decision-making process. Hamilton praises the Constitution for founding courts that are separate from Congress and their influence allowing for a truly free
All things considered, Mark Sutherland has brought together a provocative corps of respected scholars and legal thinkers who collectively offer an incisive critique of a judiciary gone awry while they offer constructive solutions for reform. They make it abundantly clear that we the American people do not have to be slaves to the edicts of these black-robed deities. Their adroit assessment of the federal judiciary is intelligent, rooted in a principled esteem for the rule of law and constitutional popular rule, and their solutions are constitutional defensible, practical and tenable. One thing is resoundingly clear, we must stand up to these demigods in block robes that contravene the design of our federal republic and offer outlandish decisions at odds with the will of the vast majority of the people. It is paramount that the American people awaken and voice their discontent to their elected representatives in Congress if we are to abate judicial tyranny.
I would have to disagree with Mr. Hamilton because the Judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, is a powerful branch of the
Judicial Restraint v Judicial Activism: District of Columbia v Heller, 2008 The Constitution states that the “judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,” a court made up of justices from different backgrounds, races, religions, and most importantly political views. The Court has the ultimate responsibility of overseeing all affairs of Congress and – when deemed necessary – acting to overturn decisions found not in accordance with the Constitution. When deciding cases that could potentially violate the Constitution, justices use judicial restraint or judicial activism in their decision-making. Judicial activism is a term used for instances in which judges “creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws, ” allowing them to meet the needs of the people that would not be met otherwise; justices essentially act as policy makers.
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
Wade, many Americans are losing trust in the Supreme Court and want to limit the power of the Supreme Court to tackle the Supreme Court's crisis of legitimacy. However, limiting the power of the Supreme Court of the United States is not an effective solution to solve the issues of political bias among the justices. The power of the Supreme Court is derived from the Constitution with enumerated powers, which grants authority to interpret the law and serve as a check to the other branches of government (The White House). Attempting to limit the Court's power would require a constitutional amendment like with other branches of government, which is a complicated and lengthy process that requires a proposition of two-thirds majority vote of the House of Representatives and must be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. Instead of limiting the power of the Supreme Court, it would be more effective to focus on improving the process of nominating and confirming justices.
The argument alone is sufficient to see that the courts having the power of judicial review could be disastrous. Knowing that this power gives leeway for an Oligarchy to form , I still believe that it gives power for the Judiciary to provide fair and just service to us as a
