Brennan Vs Renanquist Analysis

Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese held different views on the interpretation of the Constitution when it came to ruling in a case. Brennan held the view that judicial review should be done constitutionally, but to keep human dignity in mind when ruling in a case. Brennan makes his opinion on the matter known saying, “The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority.” (Brennan). Unlike Brennan, Meese believed in sticking strictly to what the constitution stated for most matters. Rarely would he have agreed to stray away from the true meaning of the framed principles

Facts: The people of Arkansas voted to add term limits to the Houses of Congress. Preventing candidates’ names from appearing on the ballot if they had served: 2 terms in the Senate and 3 terms for Representatives. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional. It was appealed to the United States Supreme Court and affirmed the decision.

The executive branch includes and is led by the President of the United States of America. Furthermore, this branch also includes the cabinet, executive, and independent agency departments. The President is able to veto the proposition of a new law and designate federal judges and federal posts. The President is also given the power to grant forgiveness to a crime that has been committed. As well as negotiate with foreign countries and treaties about situations and certain topics. According to the article “Judicial Appointments: Checks and Balances in Practice”, written by Rachel Brand, she states that:

History shows that pluralism is linked to democracy which is a system characterized by checks and balances of autonomy or power. Such autonomy is the one in play in forging an agreement of the general interest that dictates administrative strategy or policy framework. On the other hand elitism notion regarding the administration states that a chosen few of the most affluent and influential people or groups direct and influence public policy that works in their favor and satisfies their own interests. Various scholarly standpoints reveal that a more contemporary notion of American administration and partisan matters incorporate the two worldviews of partisan behavior. Pluralist and elitist approaches are two

Edwin Meese III held quite a different view as compared to that of William Brennan. Meese held the opinion of strictly following exactly what is stated in the Constitution of the United States, otherwise known as fidelity. In his essay he focuses on fidelity often. Edwin Meese portrays his belief in his essay as he quoted Justice Joseph Story, “The First and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.” (Meese). Although the parties may have written certain things of their time that may not even apply to future situations from that point on, Meese continued to hold the belief that what was written is really meant and is not to be interpreted

In William Brennan’s view on the American Constitution he focused on human dignity to determine his interpretation. As he states in his essay, “But we are an aspiring people, a people with faith in progress. Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations. Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline.” (Brennan). Brennan believed that all important reading such as the Constitution require the reader to go much more in depth rather than to just scratch the surface of the text. He believed in viewing the Constitution with human dignity in mind. Human dignity is in a sense what the Constitution is composed of. The Founding Fathers did not wish for anything other than the respect of human dignity in this country.

Justice Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite opposition from other justices and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the founding fathers had meant for it when the Constitution was written. Scalia’s critics contended that the Constitution is a “living document,” therefore, it should allow the courts to take into consideration evolving viewpoints of society.

The Brennans were a fairly well like family in Mumbilli. That was up until Daniel, the eldest son, crashed his car under the influence of alcohol that killed two of his friends and rendered his cousin Fin a quadriplegic. The Story of Tom Brennan follows the lives of Daniel’s family after the incident and the amount of pain and suffering they went through. The story has a heavy focus on Daniel’s younger brother and year eleven student Tom and his life with all of the torment and pain. “Everything we do in life affects others.” (pg 131) Daniel’s actions on the night of the crashed changed the lives of his family forever.

In the year 1803, an ambivalent, undetermined principle lingered within the governing minds. The government and its “justified” Constitution were thought to be fully explained, until a notion occurred that would bring individuals to question the authority and their limit for empowerment. To end his days as president, John Adams named fifty-eight people from his political party to be federal judges, filing positions created by the Judiciary Act of 1800, under the frequently listed Organic Act. His secretary John Marshall delivered and sealed most of the commissions, however seventeen of them had not yet been delivered before Adams’s departure in 1801. On top of that, Thomas Jefferson refused to appoint those seventeen people because they were

The United States is a constitutional republic with a representative democracy, the political system consists of three branches of government; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Supreme Court established under the Judiciary Act of 1789 is an integral part of America’s political system, which plays an important role in the checks and balances between the three branches of Government. The Supreme Court’s role in checks and balances was established following the case of Marbury vs. Madison, when the Supreme Court was granted the ability to perform Judicial Review. Over the last two centuries the Supreme Court has further evolved by becoming more involved with civil liberties and individual rights, as well as by changing the way the constitution

many years since it was established. These cases have been decided by a very close vote. Each

The law is considered to be one of the most important aspects in a society. It establishes rules and regulations and sets guidelines and expectations for the people it governs. However, when the law is questioned by the people that uphold it, ideas and opinions begins to change. With a change of ideas, society begins to evolve and grow to accommodate the people in it. Earl Warren was appointed as the 14th Supreme Court Chief Justice in 1953, and for the many years that followed he made a lasting impression on the United States courts and their laws. Throughout the years as Earl Warren worked alongside the law he impacted and changed many characteristics that were not impacted before. He addressed problems that many were too afraid to face,

An economic crisis demanded national solutions, and the Government in Washington grew fast to meet these new demands. Fundamental changes in the political landscape affecting Supreme Court appointments. There has been ten critical developments in American politics, which was the growth and bureaucratization of the Justice Department and of the White House. Also paralleling the increased role for national political institutions in American life has been growth in size and influence of federal courts, diving party government, the confirmation process had become increasingly public, the rise in power of the organized bar, increased participation by interest groups, increased media attention, advances in legal research technology and finally, the more visible role the Supreme Court has assumed in American political life has increased the perceived stakes of the nomination process for everyone that was involved.

What this entails is that the judicial branch should be exempt from partisan voting and elections and remain unbiased in their ruling. Supreme Court Justices were given life long terms in office to carry out their service, free from the interference from the executive and legislative offices. With too much reliance on the other two branches, the judicial system would become skewed away from blind justice and turn to ruling in favor of their political affiliation in hopes of gaining re-election.

The United States Supreme Court is not transparent to the citizens in this country and they fail to publicly reveal reasoning’s to their decisions that they have made. The courts non-transparency make people wonder and uncomfortable for congress has to openly show how they voted one bills Jeffrey L. Fisher razes this type of questions in his article “The Supreme Court’s Secret Power” in The New York Times he raises concern for the Supreme Court and the justice; claiming that they have become too powerful and the people of this country deserve to see how each justice vote due we entrusted them I the position and we deserve to know if they are in good favor.