judicial restraint v. judicial activism

13
Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Upload: amelia-larsen

Post on 31-Dec-2015

65 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism. Judicial Restraint. Stick to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Use the original intent of the Framers. If Constitution is silent or ambiguous, defer to states and/or elected branches. Judicial Restraint (cont.). - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Page 2: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Judicial Restraint

Stick to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Use the original intent of the Framers.

If Constitution is silent or ambiguous, defer to states and/or elected branches.

Page 3: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Judicial Restraint (cont.)

Judges are not elected and not accountable to the people.

They should not be policy makers.

They should not impose their personal views.

Amendments can be used to update the Constitution if need be.

Page 4: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism

The Constitution is a “living” document.

A broad interpretation should be used to account for modern circumstances.

Uphold the spirit of the Constitution, not just the letter.

Page 5: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism (cont.)

Courts are the last resort for the powerless.

Legislative majorities can be discriminatory.

The Amendment process is too difficult to navigate.

Page 6: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Selective Incorporation

Page 7: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Selective Incorporation

Does the Bill of Rights apply to actions taken by the states?

In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), John Marshall said NO!

Federalism demands that state courts be allowed to adjudicate state laws and actions.

Page 8: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Fed. Appeal

sFed.

District Courts

State Appeals

State District Courts

FEDERALISM

StateS.C.S.C.

President

Congress

StateGovt.

Const.

Bill of Right

s

Page 9: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Selective Incorporation (cont.)

During Reconstruction, the 14th Amendment was passed to try and protect freed slaves from unfair state laws.

By repeating the “Due Process” clause and creating the “Equal Protection” clause, Congress was hoping that unfair state laws could be struck down by the S.C..

Page 10: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Fed. Appeal

sFed.

District Courts

State Appeals

State District Courts

FEDERALISM

StateS.C.

S.C.14th Amendment

Congress

President

StateGovt.

Const.

Bill of Right

s

Page 11: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Selective Incorporation (cont.)

In Gitlow v. NY (1925), the S.C. allowed an individual to use the 14th Amendment to challenge a state law restricting free speech.

Although the Court upheld Gitlow’s conviction, this case established a precedent that provisions of the Bill of Rights could be applied to the states.

Page 12: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Selective Incorporation (cont.)

The idea that the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states is called the “incorporation doctrine.”

Over the past 60 years, the S.C. has, on a case-by-case basis (i.e., selectively), “nationalized” most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Page 13: Judicial Restraint v. Judicial Activism

Fed. Appeal

sFed.

District Courts

State Appeals

State District Courts

FEDERALISM

StateS.C.

S.C.14th Amendment

Congress

President

StateGovt.

Const.

Bill of Right

s