On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, as in many others, Judicial Activism is just an excuse for justices to rule based on personal opinion. The judicial branch of the government needs to show judicial restraint because of the variety of the cases they receive. They need to make sure that the rulings they enact are rulings that follow the constitution and not their own personal beliefs as they have been doing for some time now. In my opinion, the most important example of judicial restraint being in need in American history occurred on May 20, 1940.
POL 120.0901 9/13/2014 Why the constitution is considered a “living document” The Constitution is a set of rules and regulations building up a document that provides explanations regarding the guiding principles of a country and which guarantees all citizens their rights (Amar 27). Many nations of the world have written and implemented their own constitutions. Nevertheless, a constitution is considered to be a living document for several reasons. Therefore, this paper focuses on a discussion of some of the reasons that explain why a constitution is considered a “living document”. A number of reasons explaining why a constitution is considered to be a living document include, the ideas of separation of power, checks and balances, judicial reviews and the process of amendment.
The main flaw with the constitution of the United Kingdom is that it allows the government of the day too easily to remould constitutional issues in ways which suit their own interests. Critically discuss. This essay aims to critically analyse arguments concerning whether the constitution of the United Kingdom can be altered by the government of today, in modes which suit their best interests. In relation to the statement above, a conclusion will be deduced after looking into the functions of the constitution, the theories of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Separation of Powers, alongside means by which the government has sustained power. Professor KC Wheare defines the constitution of a state as: “… the whole system of government of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government.” The evolving nature of the UK constitution implies that it is somewhat straightforward for the government to alter the constitution and adapt it to ever changing times.
The Elastic Clause states that Congress shall have the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carting into execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof (Angel&Gerberg). Jefferson as a strict constructionist believed that this would give Congress unlimited power. The relevance of constitution interpretation in our time is that when the constitution was written they could not see into our time the 21st century and therefore we need interpretation to help with the problems that arise in our
The Supreme Court role is important in the United states system of government. The Constitution is the main source that gives it the power to check the actions of the President and Congress. The Supreme Court is the one who is responsible for interpreting the U.S Constitution and to ensure that any federal and state law abide by the constitution. The drafters of the Constitution ensured the protection of it by creating a balance of powers among the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court. They are very important to balance the powers between each other but at times it can become very difficult to maintain it because they each have boundaries.
Jefferson believed in a strict view of the constitution while he was an advisor. When he became president, his view changed. He supported a more loose view of the document in accordance with his policies. In order for the Constitution to be understood, the chaos around the time it was written must be first understood. Yet that chaos in not the same as now, therefore the constitution must be interpreted loosely in a way that it fits society nowadays.
He thought that the government would be given too much power. His thoughts on the injustices in the Constitution greatly influenced the making of the Bill of Rights. At the time, Federalists argued that the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights, due to the fact that the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government, but Anti-Federalists said that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. So when the Bill of Rights was made it listed prohibitions on governmental power and the rights that were granted to people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution it was became the fundamental rights of all citizens in 1791.
The framers decided on the strict enforcement of Article V, as they believed in the ideology of stability, which would allow the government to function properly. Therefore, Sanford Levinson, a Constitution Scholar of the University of Texas refers to Article V as an “iron cage” which locks in any reforms needed to the Constitution regarding important political and social issues (Black, MinnPost.com). Notably, one significant example regarding the difficulty of amending to the constitution serves to be the Equal Rights Amendment, which failed due to the requirements addressed
This essay plans to illustrate the pros and cons of a codified constitution and answers the original question; should Britain adopt a codified constitution? The main argument against a written constitution is that Britain has survived very well without one and that the strength of an unwritten constitution is its ability to evolve according to circumstances because it is not set in stone. The Conservatives would say that “if it aint broke, don’t fix it” As well as being flexible, the current system also has a number of informal checks and balances built into it, mostly based on convention, so that there is a degree of balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, which suggests a written constitution would be unnecessary. An example might be the
A constitution lays out the rules and guidelines that specify the abilities, rights and powers that belong to a government and the citizens of a certain country; it should provide a clear structure from which to govern. The success of a constitution is largely judged on its ability to remain strong whilst maintaining the ability to evolve to satisfy a countries needs as society changes. Flexibility is key however too much of this would cause significant disruption to a governments ability to rule and a citizens day to day life. A constitution needs to remain relevant yet rigid in order to preserve a stable government. The success of a constitution may rely on its ability to evolve however there are also many other factors that will lead to the success of a constitution.