Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Constitutional interpretation critique essay
Powers of the Supreme Court
American constitution ambiguity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Constitutional interpretation critique essay
The Constitution of the United States is a complex idea, adopted at a fragile time in American history and is the framework for our government systems. There are different ways to view this document and different ways to interpret it, which can cause debate over the proper and correct way to go about interpretation. Justice Antonin Scalia and former Justice William Brennan, are two intellectuals with different methods and ideas about the correct way to interpret and enforce the Constitution. To understand how the Constitution works for the people of America, one must first understand about the Justices of the Supreme Court who have the power of enforcing the rules and regulations of Americas most prized document.
Unlike the other branches of government, the Supreme Court does not have the same rules for appointing its members. The Constitution doesn’t go into lengthy detail about the Supreme Court; therefore the people in power have had to invent a process for “electing” Justices. Currently, the United States holds nine Justices at one time. This number has changed over the years, but since 1869 there have been nine seats (Greenhouse). It is up to the President and the Senate to appoint members to these nine seats. First the President nominates someone who he or she thinks will be best for the position and that person must secure a majority vote from the Senate to become a Justice of the Supreme Court. There are no other rules to adhere by; no certain professional background is necessary, no age limit requirements, or even citizenship status regulations as with the legislative and executive branched of government. Basically, anyone can be appointed as long as the President nominates and the Senate approves, although hi...
... middle of paper ...
... If the Supreme Court fails to grow with the American population, the growth of the United States is therefore hindered. If other judiciary systems rely on the majority thought of the jury, then why would the Supreme Court not also at least attempt to intrepret how the majority of the American people would in any given circumstance?
Works Cited
Chicago, The Oyez Project at IIT. William J. Brennan, Jr. 23 February 2014 .
Greenhouse, Linda. The U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2012.
Scalia, Justice Antonin. "Originalist: The Lesser Evil." Cincinnati, 16 September 1988.
Supreme Court of the United States. 2014. 22 February 2014.
William J. Brennan, Jr. "The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification." Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 12 October 1985.
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.
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
Through the years many changes have taken place, and technologies have been discovered, yet our Constitution remains. Some say that the Constitution was written for people hundreds of years ago, and in turn is out of step with the times. Yet its principals and guidelines have held thus far. The framers would be pleases that their great planning and thought have been implemented up until this point. However this does not compensate for the fact, that the we the people have empowered the government more so than our fore fathers had intended. Citizens were entrusted with the duty to oversee the government, yet so many times they are disinterested and only seem to have an opinion when the government’s implications affect them. As time has changed so has the American people, we often interpret our freedoms in a self serving manner, disregarding the good of the whole and also the good for the future. Thus there are no true flaws in the Constitution, it appears that the conflict emerges in the individual and their self, and poses question when we must decide when to compromise the morals that our Constitution was founded on, or when to stick to what we know is right and honest.
Gunther, G. (1991). Constitutional Law. Twelfth Edition. New York: The Foundation Press, Inc. pp. 1154-1161.
By its use of majority rule, America’s democracy models a collectivist society. Take elections for an example. Although, Americans vote individually, the decision ultimately is based on the country as a whole. The use of majority rule relates to the representation of the ideas of the masses rather than the ideas of the individuals. As expected, there is always a number of people who disagree with the majority's opinions. Disagreement is frowned upon, which Andrew P. Naplitano highlights in his book, It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom. Due to America's use of the majority rule, this title often holds true.
The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the United States. Since its creation in 1789, 112 justices have served on the Court. Of these 112 justices, four of them are women. President Ronald Reagan appointed the first female justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, in 1981; she served for 25 years. Sandra Day O’Connor changed the face of women in politics.
October 5, 2013 in Cornell Law. CRS/LII Annotated Constitution of the United States. Cornell University Law School, Inc. 2013. The. Web. The Web.
In William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
I think that it is important to remember that the framers were fairly new at creating a government unlike any other government in the world and their main concern was freedom from government control. It appears that their biggest mistake was not applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the national government. It also becomes problematic in that two men, having different political beliefs and opinions, can interpret the same law in very different ways. Thus, the Supreme Court, established in 1789, which consists of the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. In other words, when there is disagreement concerning constitutional law, the Supreme Court settles it. The power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. This in itself has become conflictual due to affiliations which could certainly sway decisions in favor of one particular political
There are two major ways that the Constitution is interpreted. One of which is called the “Strict Constitution” of national law, an example of this would be the “Dred Scott decision. The other way is the federalist position, where the Constitution grants broad power to the federal government. Two great examples of this type of interpretation were Chief Justices John Marshall and Earl Warren.
Newmyer, R. Kent. John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court. Baton Rouge:
Anastaplo, George. The Amendments to the Constitution: A Commentary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1995. Print.
One of the most unique and vital features of the American government is the establishment of a constitution. This constitution is a result of the fear of tyranny and the idea of rights that are unable to be infringed upon. The Constitution of America became the base of all law and decisions made in court. It gives us the ability to propose and pass laws, who can sit in power, what states can and can’t do under the supremacy clause, disburse funds, etc. In order to truly understand how the constitution can be implicated and interpreted, it is important to understand where it came from, and what Article One of the constitution states about governmental organization, and the Legislative branch.
The Constitution or “the supreme law of the land”, as stated in article six in the constitution is very complex. It is complex not only in its actual text full of ambiguities and vagueness, but it becomes more complex when used in practice and interpreted. Constitutional interpretation is significant because it is what decides what the constitution actually means. Constitutional interpretation is a guide judges use to find the legal meaning of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution and amendments can make a big impact on outcomes. In our government and Judiciary, we see commonly see originalism being used to interpret the constitution and amendments, but there
...it from protecting the rights of minorities and from becoming a true proponent of social change. In conclusion, the Court is a somewhat constrained institution in that it only responds to the demands and whims of society. The Court's dependency upon society for case initiation as well as case enforcement prevents the Court from rendering decisions entirely opposed to societal opinion, thus why the Court can never fully lead social change within the United States. This is why, “at its best the Court operates to confer legitimacy, not simply on the particular and parochial policies of the dominant alliance, but upon the basic patterns of behavior required for the operation of a democracy” (Dahl 295).