strict construction vs judicial activism

730 Words3 Pages
I choose to support the philosophy based on strict construction rather than judicial activism because most correct decisions made as a member of the Supreme Court is based on textual evidendence. A decision would be far more concrete because it would greatly be supported by the Constitution itself as written, rather than basing each and every decision on extended assumptions on what the Constitution is portraying as law. Strict construction compels a member of the judicial court to practice originalism or textualism, meaning for instance abiding by every word of the Constitution with no exception to its meaning. Unlike strict construction, judicial activism allows for laws to be interpreted using personal point of views of how public policy ought to be. According to Black’s Law, judges that allow this philosophy to guide their decisions find themselves in violation of the constitution and often ignore its precedence. A perfect example of applying strict construction to hearing a case is one such as Marbury vs. Madison in 1801, after President Thomas Jefferson followed after President John Adams. The dispute started when President Adams appointed the “midnight judges” into the district court before he ended office, but did not deliver the commission papers to some of the selected judges –including William Marbury, appointed to the position as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia—that were essential to completing the engagement process. Adams assumed that the new Secretary of State, James Madison would deliver the commission papers necessary for the appointees to begin their duties as the new judges. But Jefferson who feared that the district court would be filled by a horde of Federalist supporters would loose main control of the federal judiciary. He ordered Madison’s secretary to withhold the documents from being delivered. Marbury retaliated by
Open Document