Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Constitutional Law, & the Courts - Original Intent v. Legislating from the Bench (Read 1666 times)

Constitutional Law, & the Courts - Original Intent v. Legislating from the Bench

Quote from:    Wikipedia    http://tinyurl.com/57z8m   

[glow=blue,2,300]The Supreme Court [/glow]of the United States (first abbreviated as SCOTUS in 1879) was established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789 as the highest federal court in the United States. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction........


Quote from:     Wikipedia   http://tinyurl.com/yfr2lz    

[glow=blue,2,300]Judicial Activism [/glow] describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism, and which specific decisions are activist, is a controversial political issue, particularly in the United States. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers......





Quote

[glow=blue,2,300]Some of the many Milestone Supreme Court Decisions [/glow]

1803 - Marbury v. Madison
This decision established the system of checks and balances and the power of the Supreme Court within the federal government.

1857 - Dred Scott v. Sandford
This decision established that slaves were not citizens of the United States and were not protected under the U.S. Constitution.

1954 - Brown v. Board of Education
This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and granted equal protection under the law.

1964 - New York Times v. Sullivan
This decision upheld the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

1966 - Miranda v. Arizona
The decision established the rights of suspects against self-incrimination.

1973 - Roe v. Wade
This decision the right to privacy extends to include a woman's right to choose pregnancy or abortion.

1974 - United States v. Nixon
This decision established that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified.

2008 - District of Columbia v. Heller
The decision that The Second Amendment does protect the individual's right to bear arms.

2013 - United States v. Windsor
This decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act deprived legally married (under State Law) same-sex couples of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.





[glow=blue,2,300]A Complete List of United States Supreme Court Cases & Decisions [/glow]



The Constitution of the United States of America, the [glow=red,2,300]'Law of the Land'[/glow] as it is affectionately known to the American People, has been heatedly debated since before it's inception in late 1780's to present date.

A further in-depth history & account of how the U.S. Constitution was crafted by The Founding Fathers,  & eventually ratified as 'The Law of the Land', including reference to all the 27 Amendments, can be found here

In this thread we have the grand opportunity, whether you are an American Citizen or not, to debate & argue past, present, & possibly future S.C.O.T.U.S. (Supreme Court of the United States) decisions to your hearts content.

As with most valid argument, whether pro or con, it is important that you back up your contentions with valid links to support your position(s).


The only special request I make of all debaters is that, whether or not you like the  U.S. or  it's Constitution, 
is that you please show respect for the historical aspects of America's most treasured & cherished document,
second only to the Declaration of Independence.



Have fun, & enjoy a most spirited debate!     

Re: Constitutional Law, & the Courts - Original Intent v. Legislating from the Bench

Reply #1 –
Quote from: SmileyFaze on
Judicial Activism describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism, and which specific decisions are activist, is a controversial political issue, particularly in the United States. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers......

This has become a "boy who cried wolf" issue. Within the Wikipedia it's noted that:

Quote
Kermit Roosevelt III has argued that "in practice 'activist' turns out to be little more than a rhetorically charged shorthand for decisions the speaker disagrees with";[8] likewise, the solicitor general under George W. Bush, Theodore Olson, said in an interview on Fox News Sunday, in regards to a case for same-sex marriage he had successfully litigated, that "most people use the term 'judicial activism' to explain decisions that they don't like."


Often the court finds correctly according to constitutional law, but the losing side cries "judicial activism!" (In same-sex marriage cases I had to rolled my eyes and say "yes, the Bush-appointed conservative judge is a gay activist... " But the Left cries it as well over decisions against gun-control, but in reality the court's decision was in line with the constitution.

Original intent is an interesting question. It seems to assume all the signatories to the constitution had the same intent. For example, George Washington was Federalist until he died. Pierce Butler was a Federalist, but converted to the Democratic-Republican party. Did they really have the same intent and understanding of the document they signed? It would require reading of other papers authored by those men to really answer that question, would it not?

Re: Constitutional Law, & the Courts - Original Intent v. Legislating from the Bench

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Sanguinemoon on
Original intent is an interesting question. It seems to assume all the signatories to the constitution had the same intent. For example, George Washington was Federalist until he died. Pierce Butler was a Federalist, but converted to the Democratic-Republican party. Did they really have the same intent and understanding of the document they signed?


During those few moments while the signatures were penned to paper, all differences & arguments were swept aside, all petty gripes were deemed as unimportant, not as important as a united stand, for during those moments they were to be seen in total agreement as they signed in unison, establishing everyone a new nation -- unanimously -- without coercion or reserve. It's not as if they just walked in & signed without long discussion & deliberation. No, they knew that putting their signature on that paper was an extremely serious matter, & that it meant one thing.....that as worded, they agreed  .....  ergo their signature.

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on
......It would require reading of other papers authored by those men to really answer that question, would it not?


Not really, just glean the list of signatories, find his name, & know exactly what he meant by putting his name there, as the pen was pressed to paper, while the ink was set to dry.

Almost anybody can change their views from time to time in developing their positions, many do, but when the Constitution was signed, during those very solemn moments, they signed it together, & agreed in it's meaning unanimously.

If they changed their minds 10 minutes later, it means not a bit.

If they felt for,  & argued for other wordings in the days leading up to their signing, they wouldn't have signed if they didn't ultimately agree, so it means not a bit.

If you personally disagree with the meaning of the Constitution, & would prefer to read something else into the document, that's your prerogative, but your argument can only be seen for what it is, a matter of personal convenience -- a matter that can't be borne out in fact.

If you wish to change this sacred 225 year old document, restructure what it says, & what it means, then according to Article V, you must amend it, or overthrow the government that is sworn by oath to protect it.

Your choice.