1. Describe these two judicial philosophies. Judicial Activism is when judges/courts do not strictly stick to the interpretation of a law, but create a new one. Easily explained, when an issue is being ruled upon, courts establish a new law to rule broadly on the issue rather than limit their verdict. A lot of magistrates go beyond the constitution and statutes words and use their own political and personal thoughts.
Legal theories is a blend of legal, political, social and economic considerations and as a result it has redundantly risen and fallen. Nonlegal influences allows scholars to put theories in particular categories that allows one to get a clear perspective of certain theories. Both methods are board in scope with the intent of clarifying the constitution‘s actual meaning. However only nonlegal methods gives a depth clarification of indicated theories pertaining to the constitution. Describe the two general methods of interpreting the Constitution.
This is true, but to interpret the laws and judge their constitution are the two special functions of the court. The fact that the courts are charged with determining what the law means does not suggest that they will be justified in substituting their will for that of
President Woodrow Wilson wrote “the he Constitution of the United States is not a mere lawyers’ document, it is a vehicle of life and its spirit is always the spirit of the age.” One must keep this fact in mind when comparing the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. There was a vast difference in the “spirit of the age” when these documents were drafted. Coming on the heels of the Declaration of Independence and the war against England, and afraid of a dictatorship or a government that did not listen to its people, the Articles of Confederation (which will be referred to as AoC) were written it a way that gave more power to the states. The problem with this type of government was that it was too difficult to enact or enforce laws and the government could not collect enough taxes to support itself. I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes.
After examining the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, the Constitution better represents the reasons that the Revolutionary War was fought by unifying the states, avoiding a monarchy, and also simply solving any major crisis that rose. One of the main principles in which the Revolutionary War was fought was to become their own country. When they became the “United” States of America, they did not intend to become the “Individual” States of America. The Articles of Confederation permitted the states to act as if they were totally separate countries instead of one. The Constitution was able to unify the states under one strong, central government and unify the states creating a strong, independent country.
The major principles of the constitution were the idea of popular sovereignty, representative Government, Limited government, Personal and economic freedom, separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism. Unit 1 ends off into explaining the ideas of Federalism. Federalism is defined a power shared between national, state, and local governments. The unit goes into the specifics on federal division on power, the Enumerated Powers are powers listed specifically in the Constitution that are given to the federal government. And the Implied Powers are national powers not listed in the Constitution but that have expanded over time, also known as the Elastic Clause.
Legistlative Branch was to make laws, the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws, and the Judicial Brance is to interpret the laws. The Consititution banned states from being completely independent from one another but still be able to have their rights in independence for the people. Though these branches had remanded in the plans, it also followed into the Constitution. This new government would allow for a republic to rule, where the people had the oppurtunity to voice for themselves and to be heard that would respectfully benefit everyone in the country, and not just the majority. Peple had feared the Constitution, as it could potentially threaten their rights and properties.
The federal government currently holds the power but the states can counter that power if they want. On a number of issues, states have the right to form their own regulations and acts. According to Lombardo (2014), because of checks and balances provided by the Constitution the states are allowed to
The principle of subsidiary, which is gaining adherents, proposes that, in a modern democracy, decisions should be taken as close to the people as it is feasible. A new entrenched dispersal of powers to the regions and smaller localities would reverse this process and ensure that such centralisation could not occur again. Prerogative Powers The prerogative powers exercised by government on behalf of the Crown are ill-defined and uncontrolled. Unlike statutory powers, which fall under parliamentary control, prerogative-based actions can be limited only if the courts judge them to be excessive. Such judicial action is rare.
The tenth amendment to the United States Bill of Rights states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”(6). The United States constitution gives states the ability to shape their own constitution, barring any contradiction to the positions that the Federal Government takes on divisive issues. When state amendments don‘t align with the U.S. constitution, the Federal Government can flex their muscle to prove the power they have over states. In short, states have limited, some explicit others vague, powers over their own constitution. The U.S. constitution sets the rules and “state constitutions provide