CRJ330_constitutionalreview_koedinger

CRJ330_constitutionalreview_koedinger - RUNNING HEAD:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
RUNNING HEAD: CONSTITUIONAL REVIEW 1 Constitutional Review Amanda Koedinger Dr. Barrs Strayer University
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Constitutional Review 2 A) Traditional theories of judicial review hold that neutral or principled grounds are the only legitimate bases for judicial decisions and reject political motives in judicial decision-making. Do you believe this is true? Do you see principled v. political motives in important U.S Supreme court constitutional decisions which overturn laws passed by legislatures (such as restrictions on gun ownerships or marijuana use)? I do believe the tradition theories of Judicial Review to be fair. Although the Supreme Courts are suppose to remain neutral and reject political motivates they are still human. The Justices’ want to believe they are acting on principle. Those who believe in a certain cause may feel they are acting politically. The whole purpose of the Judicial Review is to halt a law passed by legislature if it is in violation of the Constitution. “Kailash Rai defines Judicial Review as the authority of the courts to declare void the acts of the legislature and executive, if they are found in the violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Judicial Review is the power of the highest court of a jurisdiction to invalidate on constitutional grounds, the acts of other government agency within that jurisdiction.”. Laws passed by legislatures such as gun ownership and marijuana use that were over turned by the United States Supreme Court is a tricky subject when asking was if it was principle or political. “The second amendment bearing arms a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”. “A 5-4 ruling by the U.S Supreme Court in the Case of McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the Second Amendment through the fourteenth amendment to the states and effectively ended Chicago’s handgun ban. Thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/28/2012 for the course CRJ 330 taught by Professor Dr.barrs during the Winter '12 term at Strayer.

Page1 / 7

CRJ330_constitutionalreview_koedinger - RUNNING HEAD:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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