Judicial Restraint In The United States

The book “Judicial Tyranny The New Kings of America?” is a compilation of articles and speeches. It is compiled by Mark Sutherland and includes writings from famed Christian personality James C. Dobson Chief Justice Roy Moore, Ambassador Alan Keyes, U.s Attorney General Ed Meese, among others. The book is a call to political action. It is aimed at Christian readers and the writers all argue that Christian politics equals constitutional purism. It is specifically meant to invoke constitutional responses and activism. Each chapter, twenty in all, are a few pages long and systematically decry the current judicial system and explain the lack of constitutional basis for their current level of power.

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

The political cartoon analyzes the branches of government using football as a metaphor to show checks and balances that limit the power of the government. Furthermore, checks and balances work for the U.S. government because powers are delegated to each branch and the checks allow for equity among the branches. In the cartoon, the legislative branch and the executive branch are playing against each other while the judicial branch is the referee. In document one, Congress has the power to write laws, but the president can veto the bills that Congress proposes. Thus, the powers balance out the branches’ powers, which keeps them in a tight line of what they are allowed to do. Also, the President appoints judges, but Congress can reject them. They

Our judicial branch is essential in the function of our current government and to make valid the constitutional rights of every citizen. In additional, the judicial branch has is established to make sure there is balance of power within the executive and the legislative branches. With this in mind and being a citizen of this country is important to know that the head of the judicial branch is a person that is well prepared and educated to make a rightful a judgement always. Correspondingly, is important to learn who the current Justices of the Supreme Court are and what are their qualifications. Recently, due to a given school assignment I was able to read more and learn more about our current Chief Justice of the United States and the Associate

There have been many complaints and theories of how the Supreme Court has a tendency to act as a "supra-legislature" (Woll 153). It is proposed that the Supreme Court takes the

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.

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.

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed into law and applied to the United States of America. Since its establishment, there have been numerous situations where the government has created laws that go against the Constitution. Importantly, the First Amendment in the Constitution protects freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. The First Amendment restricts the federal government on imposing any system of prior restraint. Prior restraint allows the government to censor material before its distribution or publication. When prior restraint is allowed, it in turn, limits 1st Amendment rights because it gives the government a right to suppress certain material. It is widely believed that the doctrine of prior restraint should only be used in rare events such as when it’s in regards to national security. But, how do we define national security? For years after the signing of the Constitution, the government has found loopholes to impose prior restraints on publications from the press because of national security.

The Judicial Branch is the balancing factor of the Government. It is the listener of the people of the US and it decides on all matters regarding the people. It "interprets the nation's law" (World Book 141). Being able to interpret the law gives the Judicial branch a special kind of power. One of which the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch do not possess. The Judicial branch decides when a law has been broken, to what extent, and how to punish the criminal act. And that is what makes it the strongest branch.

I think that independent judiciary is the most important guiding principle in limiting government power because separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that no branch can be a lot more powerful than another. This is also important because a judiciary needs to be free from the pressure and influences of the other two branches in order to make critical decisions. Additionally this way the public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law. Also this way a president can’t just put a law in place because it has to be passed by the branches of government including the judicial branch and they can decide if it’s unconstitutional. Independence is so important because they can change and set

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

There are three women on the Supreme Court, one of whom is Latina, and there is one black justice serving on the Supreme Court (Brown, 2016). This is a major issue. The United States, the “melting pot”, has an extreme lack of diversity in their court system. This is an issue that affects several aspects of society. Decisions made by judges will affect the lives of men, women, and their families. The decisions made by judges can also create law. Unlike political officials, the people do not always have the power to vote judges into their positions. Instead, the people hope that their peers with the power to affect the system choose a candidate that will fight for them. Often times, this does not happen.

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.

Judicial review provides the courts with the authority to review and change laws that the government proposes that violates the Constitution. In this paper, I will discuss the issue of judicial review. More precisely, I will be focusing my argument on Jeremy Waldron’s objection to radical disagreement, which states that we cannot agree upon what our rights are, therefore we do not know which ones should be put in the charter. I will argue that Jeremy Waldron’s argument is a good objection to judicial review, because if we cannot agree upon what moral rights are, how are we going to be able to apply them to the charter. I will begin by outlining the key points in Waldron’s argument. I will then continue to outline why Waldron’s objections are strong. Finally, I will argue that radical disagreement is a strong objection to judicial review.