Due 9/25/14 DQ 1: Your Initial Post Of At Least 200-250 Word
Due 92514 Dq 1in Your Initial Post Of At Least 200 250 Words Respon
DUE 9/25/14 DQ 1 In your initial post of at least words, respond to one of these questions: •What judicial philosophy should guide the Supreme Court's exercise of judicial review? •Should the Supreme Court's power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment? In answering either question, clearly state your position (thesis) at the beginning of your post. Define important terms and explain your position fully. Consider pro and con arguments on both sides of your position and respond to the con arguments. Justify your position with facts and persuasive reasoning.
Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
The role of the Supreme Court in the United States is pivotal in maintaining the balance of power among the branches of government and protecting civil liberties. Central to this role is the Court’s exercise of judicial review, which allows it to assess the constitutionality of legislative acts and executive actions. The question of how judicial review should be guided—by a specific judicial philosophy—or whether its power should be limited by a constitutional amendment raises fundamental debates about judicial authority, democratic principles, and constitutional interpretation. This paper explores these issues, presenting a perspective that the Supreme Court should be guided by a balanced judicial philosophy rooted in constitutional fidelity, and that its power of judicial review should not be strictly limited by constitutional amendment, but rather exercised judiciously within the framework of American constitutional principles.
Judicial Philosophy Guiding the Supreme Court’s Exercise of Judicial Review
A judicial philosophy entails the underlying principles that inform justices’ approach to interpreting the Constitution. Two prominent philosophies are judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial restraint emphasizes deference to elected branches and adherence to the original intent or text of the Constitution. Conversely, judicial activism advocates for courts to interpret the Constitution dynamically, adapting to social changes and protecting individual rights even if it means overruling legislative or executive actions (Epstein & Knight, 2013).
My position is that the Court should primarily be guided by a philosophy of constitutional fidelity, which aligns closely with judicial restraint. This approach ensures that the Court does not overstep its constitutional role and respects the democratic process by deferring to the legislature and executive unless a clear constitutional violation exists. The importance of legal stability, predictability, and respecting the framers’ original intent supports this view (Bazelon, 2000).
Arguments in Favor of Judicial Restraint
Proponents argue that judicial restraint preserves democratic legitimacy by limiting judicial power and preventing unelected judges from making policy decisions. Given that the Constitution establishes a framework for government, courts should interpret it within its original context and limit their role to constitutional interpretation, not policy-making (Baude, 2015).
Critics of judicial activism contend that courts engaging in broad interpretations risk undermining democratic processes and overstepping their authority. The risk of subjective judgments and the potential for bias threaten judicial impartiality and could lead to judicial overreach, which distorts the intent of the Constitution.
Arguments Favoring Broader Judicial Discretion
On the other hand, some argue that rigid adherence to original intent can be inadequate in addressing modern issues that the framers could not foresee. Judicial activism allows courts to safeguard rights and adapt constitutional principles to contemporary challenges, thus fulfilling their role as protectors of individual freedoms and equality (Tushnet, 2017).
However, unchecked activism can lead to politicization of the judiciary, with courts making sweeping policy decisions that should be left to elected representatives. Balancing judicial independence with accountability remains critical to prevent judicial tyranny.
Should Judicial Review be Limited by a Constitutional Amendment?
Considering whether judicial review should be explicitly limited by a constitutional amendment raises questions about judicial power's scope. Currently, judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803) as an implied power. An amendment explicitly limiting this authority could constrain the Court’s ability to protect fundamental rights and check other branches.
Supporters of limiting judicial review argue that democracy should rest solely with elected officials, and courts should not have the final say on legislative matters. Conversely, opponents contend that the independence of the judiciary is essential in safeguarding minority rights and preventing tyranny by the majority (Keyssar, 2000).
I argue that judicial review should not be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment because such restrictions could weaken the judiciary’s vital role in constitutional governance. Instead, the power should be exercised carefully, guided by constitutional principles and the rule of law, not by rigid amendments that could hinder the Court from protecting constitutional rights when other branches overreach.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review should be guided by a philosophy of constitutional fidelity and restraint, ensuring it respects democratic legitimacy while protecting fundamental rights. Restraining judicial review through a constitutional amendment would risk undermining the judiciary’s essential role in constitutional governance. A balanced approach that combines principled constitutional interpretation and judicial independence offers the best safeguard for preserving the integrity of American constitutional democracy.
References
- Baude, W. (2015). The original meaning of the political questions doctrine. Cornell Law Review, 100(3), 789-859.
- Bazelon, S. (2000). The Supreme Court and the New Deal. Princeton University Press.
- Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (2013). The Choices Justices Make. CQ Press.
- Keyssar, A. (2000). The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. Basic Books.
- Tushnet, M. (2017). The Right to Vote and the Foundations of Democracy. Yale University Press.