Examining the View that the Supreme Court is an Effective Protector of Civil Liberties In 1789, the founders of the Constitution set out the power of the Supreme Court in Article III section 2, and, arguably, in the Supremacy clause in Article 6. These clauses gave the Supreme Court the power to protect the Constitution, and by doing so, the power to protect civil liberties. The strength of the Supreme Court is essential in protecting civil liberties that are protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also increased its power through court cases and through judicial revolutions. One case that has significantly altered the power that the Supreme Court is able to exert was Marbury v Madison 1803. This was the landmark case in which Chief Justice John Marshall established that the Court had the right to rule on the constitutionality of federal and state laws. This decision established the right of judicial review even though this power was not given to the Court under the Constitution. Two judicial revolutions since 1945 have also strengthened the position of the Court. They have liberalised the concept of standing so that almost any group could bring its case before federal bench. The Court also broadened the scope of relief to permit action behalf of groups of people in class action cases. By the end of the 1970s, the Court enjoyed wide ranging power and therefore in theory, the Court was in a better position to protect civil liberties. The Bush and Reagan administrations sought to put an end to this liberalisation of the court by appointing conservative judges. However, the new judges did not want to relinquish their po... ... middle of paper ... ...n Roe v Wade, the mother was allowed to have an abortion (although she already had, the precedent was now set) the foetus' rights were not protected. The Court may sometimes act for personal and political motives, but the checks and balances built into the system still allow civil liberties to be in part protected, and this is the method of dissenting opinions. The Court is an effective protector of civil liberties once it has chosen to take on a case. The question for whether or not the Court is an effective protector of civil liberties rests on the personalities and political opinions dominating the court as to whether or not a case is taken up. This is what decides the extent to which the Court will go the protect civil liberties. It has the power to do it, but individuals may chose not to exercise this power.
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Roper v. Simmons is a perfect example of the evolving role of the Supreme Court, the sources the Supreme Court used to reach the ruling in this case is quite questionable. While I agree with the Supreme Court about protecting the younger citizens of America the Supreme Court must have the law to back up their ruling. Though in this case they do not the Supreme Court used a combination of foreign policy, moral decency, and state laws as the legal foundation for this decision. None of these things are appropriate sources for deciding what is constitutional and what is not. The sources used for deciding the constitutionality of a case are the constitution and federal statues. While the case can be loosely tied in with the eighth amendment clause of “cruel and unusual punishment” there is no backing for the decision made. The Supreme Court with this case decided that it did not overturn the previous case of Stanford v. Kentucky, which ruled on this same issue fifteen years earlier. Yet the court stated that the prevailing moral code had altered therefore they changed their opinion. The truly shocking issue with this is that the neither law nor constitution had changed regarding this issue in the interceding fifteen years. The grave problem with this case is that the Supreme Court used the case of Roper V. Simmons to create law based of invalid sources.
Schiller, W. J., Geer, J. G., & Segal, J. A. (2013). Gateways to democracy: introduction to American government, the essentials. (2nd ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth ;.
Tyranny riddles many forms of government, such as oligarchy, absolute monarchy, dictatorship, autocracy, and totalitarianism. In May of 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia gathered to create a stronger central government -- while avoiding the tyranny that so many other forms of government had allowed for. James Madison, of one those very same delegates, defined tyranny as “The accumulation of all powers...in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many...” in Federalist Paper #47. The key to the protection against tyranny in the American Constitution was the way in which power was divided. The Constitution guarded against tyranny by making provisions for federalism, the separation of powers, checks and balances of power, and fairly equal congressional power.
The First Amendment and Conservative Rulings of the Supreme Court The authors of the Constitution of the United States created a magnificent list of liberties which were, at the time ascribed, to most people belonging to the United States. The main author, James Madison, transported the previous ideas of fundamental liberties from the great libertarians around the world, such as John Lilburne, John Locke, William Walwyn and John Milton. Madison and other previous libertarians of his time were transposed into seventeen different rights which were to be secured to all those in the United States. These seventeen civil liberties were compressed into ten different groupings which were designated as the "Bill of Rights."
Constitutional Law was created as the chosen way to preserve the United States of America Constitution, ratified by Congress in 1783, in respect to its meanings, use, and enforcement, for free government, and equal justice under the law for all Americans. However, as times and generations have passed, the U.S. Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. Among the most contemporary and controversial elements are the challenges of evolving interpretations of the freedom of speech, and search warrants, which have both had a major impact on society. In particular, we explore speech not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, as well as some circumstances when a search warrant is not required for a valid search. A conclusion is drawn and outlined based on research conducted to offer a concise in-depth observation of the above topics.
The United States has long been respected for the principled thoroughness with which it has upheld the right to freedom of speech embodied in the first amendment to the constitution. We owe part of our own freedom of speech to the Americans who have upheld freedom of speech on the Internet against pressure from other countries who are angry that their citizens can call up forms of speech banned at home. The US consistently refuses to sign international agreements that would infringe the purity of its own constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech.
we had no legally protected rights of free speech in anything like the form we
Throughout the years there have been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented, they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply, among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved.
Throughout its history, the United States of America has been faced with the question of just versus unjust concerning its laws and Supreme Court decisions, as they reflect the legal standards by which people are governed. Unjust decisions can result in an injustice by prohibiting conduct that should be permitted and encroach upon the citizen’s rights. The Supreme Court of the United States is considered to be the law of the land and the decisions it makes must be obeyed. However, the Supreme Court decisions, despite being the law of the land, can be unjust as they reflect on the common sense ideologies of the time and include the final say of the majority. The ruling made in Minersville School District v. Gobitis in 1940 was unjust because it was in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and because it reflected ideologies of the majority and neglected the opinions of the minority. This decision can be negated by making the flag salute a choice that does not encroach upon an individual’s First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court was important in both suppressing and aiding the Civil Rights Movement. However, decisions taken by the President, the continued white opposition and improvements in media communications also had an effect. Although all were important, the Civil Rights movement alone would have reached the same end without the help of the Supreme Court, and the devotion of its many members and leaders is the major factor in advancing Civil Rights.
There is a question as to whether the court should have the right to decide whether to enforce constitutionality based on what is explicitly written within the Constitution or what the court decides is implied protections within the Constitution. The Bill of Rights covers multiples protections including the right to privacy in beliefs, unlawful search and seizure without a warrant, and personal information. It is my personal belief that the court should consider the implied protections of the Constitution in addition to what is explicitly written. The simplest justification for this is that the world and needs to people within the United States have changed drastically since the 18th century when the Constitution was written. With that said, as the world transitions from one focused on private life to one that is considerably more open through social media and the constant exposure that individuals permit, the court will also find themselves needing to define public and private areas of the individual’s life and rights in order to maintain consistency.
*referred to in order to determine such cases as the validity of a contract or whether or not someone was guilty of murder
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
The term ‘judicial activism’ means a court decision suspected of being built or based on individual, political or private reflections instead of the actual law. In America, judicial activism is considered either as conventional or as plentiful. The original retro of American legitimate antiquity was categorized by traditional justice involvement where the Central Supreme Law court was reluctant to allow the conditions or the assembly to permit lawmaking that would control social or financial businesses. Judges should not read between the lines or add their own experiences when it comes to determining what the verdict will be. The United States Constitution is direct, with plainly written sentences and all judges should follow those guidelines.