The arguments for strict Construction government Are formed against The View of the best people should rule versus a rule by the people. That the best possible government is one that governs least. Because a smaller government with limited powers is most likely to leave the people alone to enjoy the blessings of liberty. To keep the government small we would insist upon a strict construction or interpretation of the Constitution. the Constitution as we insist means exactly what it says no more and no less.
The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do.
In my opinion, I believe that Nixon and Clinton forgot that they are liable for actions that are not related to the duties listed in Article II of the United States Constitutions. That each branch has their privileges but when their actions and decisions are questionable the other branches have the power to check. Therefore, when the Supreme Court formulate their opinions they did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. When there is an issue raised that involves the Constitution, the Court has the right to hear the case because the judicial branch has the power to interpret the Constitution. Judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison, the court has the power to interpret what the statute means and if it is in accordance or contradiction with the Constitution.
He states that this case deals with whether or not opinions are also protected by the First Amendment. He notes that Loraine Journal derives their argument of opinions being protected from Gertz, going on to say that the Supreme Court did not believe that Gertz meant to establish any sort of protection. He then introduces a phrase such as, “In my opinion, Tom is a liar”. According to Rehnquist, the problem with this phrase is that, despite the author claiming it to be his opinion, it can still be interpreted by the reader as being a fact. Rehnquist states that just because a person claims that he is only writing an opinion, does not mean that people are hurt any less than had they not noted it was an opinion.
Another founding father, Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I believe if we let the government encroach on these rights we will not get them back. We as Americans must not give in, if specific guidelines are set for obtaining information, these guidelines must be followed. If our liberties are encroached now, who is to say the precedence is not set? Making any basic “threat” grounds to violate our established
Textualism is interpretation based on what is actually writing in the constitution, which is what the dissenters in this case believed they should have ruled on. Chief Justice Roberts wrote while the ruling is fair, he believes it shouldn’t have been ruled on by the Supreme Court because it is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. The majority ruling is more from the originalism perspective because they interpreted what was in the constitution and applied it to the situation at hand. The constitution is broad, and those who exercise originalism believe the framers left it that way on purpose in order to be able to adapt the constitution to changing
The denial of equal protection claim that was filed was remanded. The courts decided that the Officers involved have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity would not have been granted if the Officer conduct violated Sinthasommphone’s constitutional rights. Analysis The U.S. District Court ruled regarding the U.S. Supreme Court had made a decision previously that the constitution protects people from intrusion of the state. Qualified immunity is a legal issue based on the factual occurrences of each individual case and should be judged on such facts.
Fisher, but they held the the Court of Appeals did not hold the University’s admission policies to a standard of strict scrutiny so the judgement was incorrect. In previous judicial precedent in cases dealing with minority admissions, the Court has held that they are reviewable under the fourteenth amendment, these such cases must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny to determine whether the policies are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. If the policy does not meet this standard, then race can not be considered in any admissions process. The Court stated the it was the job of the reviewing court to verify that the University policy in question was necessary to achieve a more diverse student body and the any race-neutral alternative would not achieve the same level of diversity.The Supreme Court said the lower courts did not conduct a sufficient strict scrutiny examination in this case. Justice Ruth Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion in which she argued the the University treats race as merely one factor in the overall decision to admit a student, which is permissible under previous judicial precedent.
Therefore, the Supreme Court is saying that in order for a fundamental right to be recognizable under Fourteenth Amendment, it must be defined by the Constitution. Regardless of the fact that a particular role should be executed by the government, does not establish it as fundamental right according to the decision. As referenced by Justice Powell, if it is not written explicitly in the Constitution, it is not a role of the government to guarantee it as a right of the people. The court’s decision that education is not a fundamental right under the United States Constitution refocused local control over school funding formulas. Surprisingly, even though the court’s decision suggests to maintain the status quo; the exact opposite happened.
constitution. During his time on the Supreme Court bench he has rejected the moves towards build-up, he believes that focus should be on the actual meaning of the Constitution and not just want the court says it means due to past cases. Most if not all of the Justices opinions are based off originality, and public meaning this approach seeking to explain the original constitutional text. (Conwell Law). “I have said in my opinions that when interpreting the Constitution, judges should seek the original understanding of the provision’s text, if that text’s meaning is not readily apparent”.
The author feels the Supreme court is a bad idea because they think it will lead to abuse of power and the Supreme Court will take over the government because there wasn’t a system of checks to limit its power yet. The author shows this view when they say “In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature . . . The supreme court then has a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away.” (Antifederalist 79) This shows he thinks the Supreme Court will have the power to bend the constitution to its whim.
The dissenting opinion included: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Roberts took a strict-constructionist approach and stated that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction because same-sex marriage was not explicitly stated in the constitution. He stated that although same-sex marriage may be a good policy it is not the Supreme Court’s duty to make that decision. He held that the right to same-sex marriage should be given to the states rather than the national government. The constitution protected the right to marriage and requires states to implement these laws equally but the Supreme Court should not engage in judicial policy making.
The opposite spectrum of the interpretation of the creed is the conservative outlook of the constitution. Conservative interpretation of the constitution tends to have a much stricter view on interpreting the constitution than liberals, it is important to emphasize the belief that the founding fathers had at the time. Antonin Scalia the conservative supreme court judge referred to the constitution as “Dead”. This means that the constitution is not an organic document that is free to interpretation, he believes that what is written is how it should be interpreted. The conservatives believe that this is what you want and while liberals may believe that the constitution is broad to allow for interpretation, conservatives believe that is was left
However, Justice Scalia reason for perhaps ruling against Evenwel has a lot to do with the Constitution and precedent cases involving reapportionment. Justice Scalia would most likely write a dissenting opinion pouring out the issues this case presents. Not only that, but would call out justices stances on the case, for example Chief Justice questions if the case needs substantive information. This decision should not be up to the courts, but to the states. The role of the courts is to interpret the Constitution and distinguishing the lines between what is constitutional and unconstitutional and since there is nothing specifically stated in the Constitution on the redistricting of districts, it is not our duty to decide this case.”