Judicial Restraint

The judiciary system is an incredibly important part of our government. It serves the purpose of interpreting and deciding if laws are constitutional. Without someone to make these decisions, our country would not be strong. However, the people in the judicial system have two drastically different types of systems in they way they decide if a law is constitutional or not, or if it passes our governments standards. These different ideas on interpreting laws are called Judicial restraint and Judicial activism.

Judicial restraint is the first method or philosophy that judges go by. It is the idea that people in the judiciary system should limit their power in the government by the constitution. They believe that if a law conflicts directly with the constitution, it should not be passed no matter the circumstance. An example of judicial restraint in action is the Roe v. Wade case. Some people

Unlike judicial restraint, judicial activism focuses more on the present needs of the people, and not the requirements of

the constitution. Judges who prefer the method of judicial activism are more willing to declare laws unconstitutional, unlike judges who use judicial restraint. This method of judging relies more on the needs and rights of the people in this day and age, and they do not consider the constitution to be as binding as other judges do. An example of judicial activism would be in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, when Obamacare was enacted. This was very unconstitutional because it made many changes to our current healthcare system.

While both of these ways of judging have clear differences as mentioned above, they also have some similarities. Both of these work to interpret the laws set forth by the government and make America a safer place. While they might have different ideas on what their basis of judging should be, they both have the best intentions for our