Justice Thurgood Marshall Analysis

“The purpose of the United States Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government not the American people.” – The Federalist Papers. Our government is not the exact same way it was from the very beginning of its creation. It has changed dramatically over the course of about two-hundred years, as said in the video, “The Constitution must change for challenges in the future.” Truthfully, it has been changed and adapted to meet the ever changing needs of our society.

For many years, the U.S. Constitution has become a pinnacle aspect in the debates between political parties and raises a question yet to be answered: Is the Constitution still relevant? Often times referred to as the “framework” of our nation’s government, the U.S. Constitution is open for interpretation and only serves as a guideline thus meaning that there is no correct or incorrect standpoint on the issue of relevancy. Some may claim that the Constitution is no longer relevant because it was written in 1787 therefore, it is “outdated” and cannot fit the many needs of modern day society and it is restricted to the minds of The Founding Fathers who constructed it rather than the people of the United States. On the other hand, one can argue

Annotated Bibliography Thurgood Marshall Judge Adelman, Lynn. The Glorious Jurisprudence of Thurgood Marshall.2013. Print. Using Marx, Weber, and Deleuze. Judge Adelman discusses the important role of Thurgood Marshall as Chief Justice.

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.

To Justice Scalia, this means that the individual has “the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (Scalia, 4). The question at stake, however, is not whether the individual or collective is protected but the scope of the right in question. In other words, while it is clear that the amendment protects the right to use guns for military services but does not protect its use for crimes, what rights does it encompass in between those extremities, such as the right to carry a weapon for personal self-defense? A more natural reading of the amendment, where the prefactory clause is read chronologically before the operative clause, shows the text’s intent to solely protect the rights of militia. This is proven, as pointed out in the dissent, by the fact that states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania explicitly articulated in their Declaration of Rights at the time the separate right of individuals to bear arms for self-defense.

In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause stated “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century as properly but, not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

" Some reasons why this amendment was made are that the framers wanted adults to know how to use a weapon and to be ready to use a weapon if they were attacked. During this time, the British troops were still attempting to overtake the new land, one of the ways they did this was by attempting to take the people’s guns. There was still reason to believe that British would still attack the new country and the United States did not have a real army, so any military action needed to be responded to by

In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause states “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century, as properly but not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

The best contention for the insurance of the privilege to have arms is the Second Amendment. The motivation behind the alteration, and the whole Constitution, is to build up specific rights that can 't be annulled or changed by our legislature. Be that as it may, the wording of the alteration has been a wellspring of level headed discussion. The principle contention is that the revision accommodates a local army, and that the "right to keep and remain battle ready" is alluding to civilian army individuals as it were. However, the correction likewise expresses that it is the privilege of "the general population" to keep and carry weapons.

Although this is true, there is doubt that the founding fathers thought that there was a need to specify which weapons we could possess and who they could be issued to. The intention of the second amendment was to protect ourselves not to destroy one

From the Constitution’s ratification in 1787 through the 1850s, many American historians shared the consensus that the founding fathers had designed the Constitution the way they did because they were trying to protect the citizens and their rights. James Kent was one very prominent historian among this group. In his book, Commentaries on American Law (1826), he stated “THE government of the United States was erected by the free voice and joint will of the people of America, for their common defence [defense] and general welfare...and it is justly deemed the guardian of our best rights, the source of our highest civil and political duties, and the sure means of national greatness.” (Kent) Essentially, James Kent was trying to convey the point

On December 15, 1791, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The bill was approved by three-fourths of the United States. The 2nd Amendment was created, to provide citizens of the U.S. a form of private protection. However due to the increase of technology along with the rise of violence in modern time, many are beginning to question if we should remove the Amendment, and only grant members within militia organizations access to this Amendments right to bear weapons.

In the constitution it states, that its our right to bear arms. Were allowed to keep guns in our possession for fun or just protection. 59% of homes in america have a firearm which can be stolen from other people and soon your guns will become a part of illegal gun trafficking. When gun control laws came in affect gun crime spiked to 89% or 18 million cases for gun

This said that the amendment didn’t really take place if a state law didn’t agree too it. Another case was Another very similar example was the case United States vs Jack Miller. The website observed, “In the 1939 case of United States v Jack Miller, police arrested known bank robber Jack Miller and his associate, Frank Layton, for carrying an unregistered gun across state lines, which was prohibited by the National Firearms Act. The men claimed that the Act violated their Second Amendment rights, but the court disagreed. The court ruled that the Amendment allows the government to regulate ownership of certain types of firearms, including fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns.”

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.