Judicial Activism

The court case District of Columbia v. Heller all started when the right to have ownership of a handgun was forbidden with changes to the D.C (District of Columbia) regulations. The law prohibits the registration of a handgun and made it a offence to carry an unregistered firearm. So all legal firearms owned must be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked up by a trigger lock, except if they were being used for lawful recreational events or in a place of business. Dick Heller is a special law enforcement officer in the District of Columbia, he applied to register a handgun he wanted to have in his home and the District of Columbia denied his request. Heller felt as if that went against the rights given to the over-all public through the Second

The constitutional question was ?did the Controlled Substance Act allow the Attorney General to make it illegal for doctors to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminal patients? (Oyez IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015)? Ashcroft claimed that assisted suicide was not a ?legitimate medical purpose? as stated in the Controlled Substance Act this is the requirement a doctor must meet before writing a prescription.

Together with, the Constitution of the United States likewise designed a strong government by establishing a national court system. This helped the government become more secure by having equal justice under law for every citizen including the president. In the document Powers of the Federal it presents the judicial powers and the supreme court. It states, “this branch interprets and ruled the actions of the other branches” (Document 2). This shows that the judicial branch has the ability to run each case according to the law it violated, without the influence of outside factors. Founding a national court system preserved and interpreted the law. Also, this demonstrates that having a court system help the government by equivalent laws enforce

District of Columbia v. Heller is a court case that occurred through the years of 2007 through 2008. The reason of the occurrence of this court case is because Dick Anthony Heller was a special police officer in D.C.. He was authorized to carry a handgun on duty but not off duty because of D.C.’s policy on firearms. D.C. made it illegal to carry unregistered firearms and prohibited the registration of handguns. However the Chief of Police could issue a one year license to carry a handgun.

In the book, “Gun Violence” by Louise I Gerdes states, “Heller struck down a ban on handgun ownership in the District of Columbia and held that the Second

In this chapter, the question of if judicial independence is being undermined is asked. Attacks upon activist judges is a recurring theme in the United States. Various judges are attacked across the state for the decisions they make. In an adversary system, a judge’s decision often fails to find favor with the losing party. These losing parties normally label the judge as and “activist”. This means that the judge had made an unpopular opinion. There has been many examples of judges being subject to the attacks such as when Justice Penny White was voted off the bench because she voted in a death penalty case to grant the defendant more leeway. These attacks on judges can have a harsh impact on the judicial independence. The American Judicature

As we look at our history we can see that every amendment to the constitution has been challenged in court at one time or another. As long as man or woman has free will and different interpretations of things legal battles will continue. I chose the district of Columbia v Heller I chose this because the Second Amendment is one that I follow closely. The District of Columbia and the Washington DC metropolitan police department with the government entities involved in the case. The petitioner was the district of Columbia and the respondent was Dick Anthony Heller. The District of Columbia and acted a law that made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and also prohibited the registration of handguns virtually making it impossible for anyone

On January 17, 2006 in a 6-3 vote in favor of Oregon, the court declared that Congress intended the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) to only prevent doctors engaging in elicit dug activity and not to define the states standards of medical practices. Attorney General John Ashcroft made use of the CSA to prohibit certain medical practices illegitimate, including the allowance of doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients (the Death with Dignity Act). The court’s ruling in favor of Oregon was a legitimate decision, because Attorney General John Ashcroft did not have the authority to declare certain medical practices illegitimate.

Definition: the power vested in an appellate court to review/revise the decision of a lower court

I believe Judicial Activism should be removed from the Supreme Court. The Original definition of Judicial Activism is defined as a philosophy of judicial decision-

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices appointed by the President to the Supreme Court serve for life,and thus whose decisions shape the lives of "We the people" for a long time to come.

Currently, six states have enacted the death-with-dignity law allowing a terminally ill patient the right to choose how their life ends after obtaining permission from those in authority. In 44 states, state law prohibits assisted suicide and an active participant considered as committing a criminal offence. The U.S. Supreme Court protects a patient’s liberty to refuse medical treatment, but continues to side with the government’s interest in preserving life outweighing a person’s right to assisted-suicide. According to the U.S. Code, “Assisted suicide, euthanasia, and mercy killing have been criminal offenses throughout the United States and, under current law, it would be unlawful to provide services in support of such illegal activities.” (U.S. Code)

One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional.

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. said it the best in his speech to the Text & Teaching Symposium, "We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as Twentieth Century Americans." Justice Brennan also called the Constitution a fundamentally public text and called for its use to resolve public issues. If that is true, then the document must be interpreted from today's perspective - Judicial Activism. However, using only that approach would be saying that the work of the original framers was mute. This document is over two hundred years old and still very relevant to today's society. In my opinion, the court needs to find a fine line between activism and restraint or intentionalism