JUDICIAL ACTIVISM VERSUS JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM VERSUS JUDICIAL RESTRAINT - Beliefs The...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM VERSUS JUDICIAL RESTRAINT Judicial Activism Judicial Restraint Beliefs Courts should overturn bad laws and create new policies Courts must interpret the law, not legislate new policies Example Warren Court (1953–1969) Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) Key Decisions Advanced civil rights and the rights of the accused Limits on expansion of federal power Politics Tend to be liberal Tend to be conservative LOOSE CONSTRUCTIONISM VERSUS STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISM Loose Constructionism Strict Constructionism Beliefs Courts should read the Constitution expansively and should not limit themselves to what is explicitly stated Courts should not reinterpret the Constitution Example Warren Court (1953–1969) Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) Key Decisions Exclusionary rule, right to a government-funded attorney for the poor Restrictions on abortion, eliminating federal rules for state governments Politics Tend to be liberal Tend to be conservative LIVING DOCUMENT VERSUS ORIGINAL INTENT Living Document Original Intent
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Beliefs The Constitution must grow and adapt to new circumstances. Courts should interpret the Constitution as the framers intended. Example Warren Court (19531969) Rehnquist Court (19862005) Key Decisions Expansion of use of interstate commerce clause Restrictions on privacy rights Politics Tend to be liberal Tend to be conservative Constructionism in Action Privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, so strict constructionists of the Constitution believe that the only privacy rights Americans have are those specifically outlined in the Constitution, such as protection against illegal searches. On the one hand, according to the strict constructionists, there is no general right to privacy. Loose constructionists, on the other hand, assert that a general right to privacy can be inferred from the rights that were explicitly listed by the framers. Privacy rights have taken center stage in many court cases, including Roe v. Wade (1973)....
View Full Document

Page1 / 2

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM VERSUS JUDICIAL RESTRAINT - Beliefs The...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online