Justice Antonin Scalia Case Analysis

In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the country, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that naturally. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. Federal Government was not generally appreciated and

In the Marbury Vs. Madison’s case Justice John Marshall represented the case and I strongly believe that his points were solid and worth to be granted true and rational. John Marshall’s argument is that the acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not laws and therefore are not progressed into law to the courts, and ultimately the judicial boards’ first responsibility is always to practice and to make firm of the Constitution.

The views of Scalia and Brennan of our common law judicial system are very oppositional. Justice Brennan is what is considered a non-orginalist and Scalia would be a considered the opposite which is, an orginalist. Both of them agree that interpreting the constitution is so crucial to our democratic system and to making laws. However, Scalia believes that judges shouldn’t have the power to interpret the constitution into common laws because it allows for too much bias in our court system. He believes it gives the courts too much power and that they don’t have the historical knowledge base to interpret the original intent of constitution properly. Scalia thinks that this job of interpretation of important amendments would be better left to historians then to lawyers. He does not think that judges should be allowed to create laws because they don’t know how to interpret the original intent of the constitution. Justice Brennan believes that the interpretation of the constitution into common law is for a federal judge, obligatory. And that it is the job of the judges to look at the cases presented to them and use their best unbiased judgment to interpret what outcome would be best for the public good. Justice Brennan says himself that when the justices interpret the constitution they don’t speak for themselves, they speak for the public. Scalia and Brennan basically disagree on how the text should be read and about what should be considered legitimate interpretation. There

Based on the research of Justice Alito, he was appointed by former president Gorge W. Bush as one of the Supreme Court Justices on January 31, 2006 and is currently a Republican Party federal justice. His approaches to things are very unpredictable and distinctive from what he is viewed as. However, his conservative standpoint is still a part of his image. This paper will include: the background of the justice, the judicial philosophy he approaches, and his opinion on a dispute.

1) Why does Kennedy refer to the case of Marbury vs. Madison as “epochal?” Describe the short and long-term ramifications to the decision.

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.

The authority of judicial review recognized by Marbury has allowed the court to result revolutionary alteration in our sympathetic of constitutional supplies. This power hasn’t unpredictably, haggard both censure and praise over the court’s antiquity, but it has never been a supremacy totally beyond the jurisdiction of the other divisions of government. Since the President’s authority to appoint and the Senate’s authority to approve Supreme Court Justices to the infrequent great efforts of constitutional alteration, the court remains resolutely entrenched in our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Meanwhile judicial review has certified that the Supreme Court’s justices, once established, have adequate power to apply their individuality from the political divisions and apply constitutional bounds on their powers. The Court’s power in constitutional clarification rests in part on general

Although the Founders accepted slavery within their own lives, they worked for gradual emancipation for the betterment of the people. One Founder in particular, George Washington, turned to manumission as a solution. He fought in the revolution and believed that slavery was wrong. Once his wife, Martha, passed away he freed all of the slaves. Not only did he release them, but he also refused to buy any more to make a point of disproval toward the concept of slavery. Other states were making political advancements to accommodate emancipation. West points out that, “Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina changed their laws to make it easier for owners to emancipate slaves.” (Vindicating the Founders 11). The Founders argued that if

Scalia explains his dissenting opinion to the overturning of Lawrence v. Texas by comparing the case to Roe v. Wade in three areas. He looks at stare decisis, fundamental rights, and legal moralism.

Multiple groups of same sex couples sued their state agencies in four different states Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky to challenge the constitutionality of those four states ‘ban on same sex marriage. The plaintiffs of each case argued that the states’ statues violated the Equal Protection Clause and their Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One plaintiff group also brought up claims under the Civil Rights Act. The Trial court found in favor to all of the plaintiffs cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and held that the states’ ban on same sex marriage and refusal

The view of originalism to interpret the Constitution is the correct view. Scalia’s view on interpreting the Constitution through Originalism is correct because it limits the power of the judges so they can not exceed the powers given to them without infringing upon the rights given to the people, it provides a way for changes with the amendment process, and provides a structural foundation for the basis of our country. Originalism is the view that says we should interpret the Constitution based on what it was originally meant to mean. This does not mean we have to go back to older times and have things like they did back then, but it means we should try to stick to our core values that our Founding Fathers based this country on.

The circumstances surrounding the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, age 79, has caused great skepticism from the public, a public that has many unanswered questions as to whether he was murdered or if he did indeed die of natural causes. On February 13, 2016 Antonin Scalia was found dead in a bed at a resort in Texas, the Cibolo Creek Ranch. This ranch is said to be a meeting place for a branch of the Bohemian Grove Society, the Order of Hubertus. Historically guests of this ranch include the rich and famous, celebrities and the influential.

In the case, Marshall also argued that” Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation”. Marshall wanted to be certain that those who disobeyed the laws and rights were punished for their crimes. Also, he wanted to establish that rights were given for a reason and emphasized the purpose of giving

Justice Scalia argued that originalist theory was the better option for interpreting the provisions in the Constitution. This topic fits into the Supreme Court’s responsibility of interpreting the Constitution to resolve public disputes. Scalia argued that non-originalism is incompatible with judicial review of constitutionality because it allows an expansion of contemporary freedoms. In other words, non-originalist theory allows judges to incorporate current societal values in their decisions with a limited consideration to the original intent of the Constitution. Justice Scalia’s reference to the Coy v. Iowa case illustrates this point because the witnesses were separated from the defendant during their testimony. Special consideration was

Traditional Originalism led the court as the method of constitutional interpretation until the late nineteenth century. Judges were compelled to interpret the Constitution based on the original meaning of the provisions. The Originalism view interprets the constitution line by line exactly as the founders would have found it. Later, during the early twentieth century, progressives in the legal community proclaimed that due to the changing social environment as time goes on in the nation, the political system needed to be reconfigured. They thought that the political system needed increased national government authority and a modern administrative state. They also thought that the increased national authority and modern administrative state wouldn’t work well with the traditional Originalism interpretation of the constitution. After long political battles in and out of the court, they won the argument and the Constitution would be adapted without formally amending it. Debates were waged over whether or not the Constitution could be changed through interpretation instead of the originalist requirement of amendment, and over whether or not the Constitution was to be viewed as living. The notion of a “living constitution” was developed, and slowly set precedent as landmark cases made their way through the supreme court, and the interpretation of the constitution was put to the test.