From the beginning, both said that race and ethnic beliefs would not come in the way of decision making. Sotomayer made it apparent that she followed the Judicial Restraint philosophy and ultimately believe “what the constitution/laws stated is exactly how they are supposed to be interpreted”, not personal thoughts included. Thomas was the complete opposite, concluding that he followed the Judicial Activism philosophy. But, after reading research, it can be determined that no matter what philosophy that they followed, the judges background and ethnicity influenced their rulings and public
Hodges is a perfect example of a case of judicial activism. It is a case of judicial activism because the decision to allow same-sex marriage nationwide had almost nothing to do with the Constitution itself. How is one supposed to directly use the Constitution, the way strict constructionism would, if the Constitution does not directly answer the question being asked - What is marriage? Because of the fact that there is no “strict” constitutional outline when it comes to a case such as Obergfell v. Hodges majority seemed to replace opinions with their own personal thoughts on the matter at hand. They were able to look beyond the words of the Constitution ( they used judicial activism) in order to be able to better consider all of the possible outcomes that may take place by ruling positively in a case such as
In agreement, I believe all shall follow for strictly guidelines and restrictions, not to be precise within each Amendment, not one should uphold detail. The unwritten Constitution refers to traditions that have become part of our political system. Although George Washington warned us against Political Parties, they nominate candidates for office. Political Parties are not written into The Constitution, yet the people of the United States are left to vote and decide who the winner of the elections will be, and who will take the position as the next President of the United States. Yet, another reason why we, as a nation, alter the Constitution in our own ways, still allowing each part as an indication of mandate.
It all began with James Madison who was, “considered the “Father of the Constitution,” and believed that strict limits on federal power were best for liberty. Powers of the federal government which were not enumerated in the Constitution were forbidden” (“Constitutional” 1). This is how society should be today, where the federal government is restricted to enacting on the laws solely stated in the constitution. Now many presidents and high authority leaders began to follow this idea. With all other powers off limits to the federal government, they didn’t get too powerful.
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint Judicial restraint is a doctrine which encourages the judiciary to adhere closely to the wording of the law, be mindful of precedent, and should defer to decisions made by legislatures. In other words, it is a doctrine that urges judges to refrain from incorporating their own philosophies or personal preferences into the law in order to avoid misconstruction of the law. This is based on the concept that judges are to apply the law rather than determine it. One example is Luther v. Borden (1849).
Every American citizen knows about their constitution and they are proud of it. The British may be proud of the queen and other aspects of our history, but we have no constitution to identify with. The third argument is the most important. This is the dangerous shift of power towards the prime minister and the government. It is happening because the powers of the prime minister are not well defined and mostly contained in unwritten conventions which are a mystery to most people.
For decades, scholars have insisted that what most of us know instinctively to be true -- is false. Mocking the belief that individuals such as Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler or Winston Churchill make history, experts focus on social forces. They explain the past with statistical studies and abstract theories, dismissing stories about individual initiative or heroism. While powerful economic, social and ideological movements dwarfing any individual do shape history, be it the high-tech boom, feminism or the rise of conservatism, we cannot underestimate the way a leader's action and inaction can change the world. Especially when assessing the American presidency and modern America, individual character -- and contingency -- count.
Kienan Johnigan Col. Rosenbaum December 3rd, 2012 JROTC Morality in the Constitution “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams”. The United States constitution, just like any other document is due to interpretation; in our country when light is shined on a specific situation, we go to the court to solve it but if a highly important man to our country says the constitution, the doctrine that runs our country is only for moral and religious reasons, Is our country blindly being ruled over predominantly religion, or morality? Natural Law posits that there is a Creator, that we all have to answer to the Creator and the best way to guarantee our
This way of thinking was totally different from that of England who was a monarchy even up to now. Americans going a different and bold direction with the well established Constitution made sure that this Constitution was monarchy hostile. An example will be the title of nobility, which states that the title of nobility usually leads to inequality among people even though there is no such thing as equality but the theory was still created a government where under the circumstances people are treated equal. Therefore, the main reason the Constitution was dedicated to the idea and goal of equality. In other to discourage monarchy and reinforce the American idea, our founding fathers came up with the three branches of government where they would each have certain role to fulfill, share power which will allow them to oversee each other.
Many members of congress believed that individuals should have these rights regardless of having it formally written and didn’t want to create a Bill of Rights. In fact, some believed that implementing personal rights might actually take away rights (UMKC, 2012). These people were called federalists. James Madison had a different agenda though. The anti-federalists sought after a proposal that focused on passing laws, which protected the people as well as the government.