The way something is interpreted is how it is used in the practices of law, so indeed the way something is written is imperative. Judicial Review is never actually explicitly stated and described in the constitution. The importance of interpretation goes right along with the concept of judicial review. If you boil things down that’s all judicial review is, a concept. Now this ‘concept’ was derived from the constitution by our justices in the supreme court, but it is something that falls under the interpretation of the constitution.
When legislators draft and pass new laws, the laws are subject to scrutiny by the courts. One way the courts system may scrutinize new laws is by looking at the statute to determine if the law contains language that is too vague to be understood by the common man without much need for interpretation or that the law is not overbreadth (Hall, 2015). The overbreadth doctrine applies to laws that make a legal action or protected right illegal and they typically involve violating a right granted by The Bill of Rights. The vagueness doctrine may challenge a new law when the language within the law is written so loosely that it can be over applied to situation that the law was not intended to be used for or the illegal action is not clearly defined
Although it can be seen as a reasonable theory to implement in times of controversy, there are a few issues that still arise from this theory. Some weaknesses include inconsistency, and lack of substantiation, but one of the biggest flaws of living constitutionalism as argued by originalists, is that judges are given too much power, and belittle the power of the legislature and the American people. The main question that arises is how does the public know that judges are the best representatives to comprehend the nations fundamental values? Judges are granted the responsibility to alter the meaning of the constitution based on their own personal motives and beliefs, and they have powers that are far beyond those of legislators, who were structured to ensure representation of the American people. Congress and judges come from different environments, and different motives.
1. Explain why it might be difficult to effectively study law following the positive transition. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a humanistic approach to the study of law? Studying law is relatively difficult as the degree holds much of the responsibilities to sort out the issue concerned with the society (ANU, 2014).
The problems of a judge 's interpretation of the Constitution and having a jury determine the verdict, both affect the end result in a case. The judicial interpretation of the Constitution affects how law enforcement can conduct their jobs. Judicial interpretation of the Constitution is a problem because different judges are either more conservative or more liberal with the interpretation of the Constitution. This poses a potential problem because their interpretation affects the laws in the United States. The jury deciding the final verdict of a defendant is another problem in the courts.
The fault in this lies in the motivation behind the justices’ decisions; with judicial activism, it is nearly impossible to view law as objective and free of bias. Many fear that in acting as policy makers, justices bring their own partialities and beliefs into account instead of allowing the literal interpretation of the Constitution guide their decisions. On the other hand, judicial restraint can also be used when deciding cases. Judicial restraint refers to justices interpreting the United States Constitution word for word, keeping from bringing their own beliefs or biases into account and most importantly refraining from assuming the role of policy maker. Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
In addition, the Constitution gives the national government too much power, it doesn’t provide for a republican government, and in the end, it doesn't provide a Bill of Rights which is vital. In the same fashion, the Constitution gives the national government too much
Opinion work product is more difficult to obtain than fact work product. What is required to obtain opinion work product varies by court. As a minimum starting point, we look at what is required to overcome fact work product protection. First, the document requested needs to be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Fitzgerald’s proof chart is relevant because it directly bears on the claim.
This is not to say that judges do not operate under the legal boundaries as set by the constitution, but some have argued that since the discretionary powers of judges and Supreme Court judges, in this case, can significantly affect the outcome of any judicial decision, then their ideology and personal philosophy is quite important especially when they would be voting on significant cases. Finally, both sides of the divide recognize the importance, and role ideology plays in the major legal decisions. Ideology matters and a person’s thinking is bound to influence the way they will vote on important issues, and this is why interest groups on both sides of the ideological divide have strong reasons for making judicial confirmation a high priority because they know what is at stake in who occupies the federal bench. Lawrence H. Tribe.
“it's a woman’s right to control her own destiny, to be able to make choices without the Big Brother state telling her what she and cannot do” (Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Women have fought for their entire lives for equal rights which for some apparent reasons have not been acknowledged. Roe vs. Wade had changed the outlook on the United States and on a woman’s rights to her own body. Roe vs. Wade goes back to 1973 which was between a women who had an unplanned surgery in Texas who wanted to make abortions legal. Norma Leah McCorvey, better known as “Jane Roe” was the plaintiff in this case, after her case the U.S Supreme Court had ruled that state laws banning abortion are unconstitutional.
In May of 1787, 55 delegates came to Philadelphia to have a Constitutional Convention. They had this meeting so they could make the U.S. Constitution. They wanted to make one because the articles of the Confederation were not working. They wanted to make a Constitution that would benefit the U.S. The Constitution also guarded against tyranny in 4 different ways, Federalism, Separation of powers, checks and balances and big State little State, compromise.
There are many Constitutions in the U.S., all the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. I will be writing about both the Maryland and U.S. Constitution, which have many differences and similarities. This essay is about the three similarities and differences of the Maryland and U.S. Constitution that I found. The three differences and similarities are the state constitution is reserved for state government, whereas the U.S. Constitution is reserved for the national government, “They both embody the principles of representative democratic government”, and they are different in length and structure.
As time has progressed, the United States has continuously changed to meet the needs of its people. With each passing day, the country has slowly shifted away from what it had been initially as created by our forefathers. One reason for this transformation has been the nation’s judicial branch which has influenced the course of social and reform movements, as well as our ideologies and beliefs. The court rulings under Earl Warren are evidence that the judicial branch is a powerful force that can be a catalyst for change.
Federalism is the different types of principle that the government enforce law to ensure the safety for citizen and non citizens. Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally the supremacy clause can also overtake the state laws and even state constitutions. The founding fathers decide to use federalism as a way to control the people and their actions, they believed that governmental power inevitably poses as a threat to individual citizens for life and liberty because some states may abuse their power so the government decide to make laws to prevent states from taking too much power. only the federal government can intervene with