Overview: Those Who Are Strict Constructionists Believe That

Overviewthose Who Arestrict Constructionistsbelieve That Judges Should

Overview: Those who are strict constructionists believe that judges should enforce, not interpret law. This perspective is considered an extreme view where an individual has no rights unless they are explicitly specified in the Constitution or other legal sources. Strict constructionism emphasizes a literal interpretation of the Constitution and generally resists broad or implied rights not explicitly articulated in legal texts (Bailey, 2020). Proponents argue that this approach preserves judicial restraint and upholds the separation of powers by limiting the judiciary's role to enforcing the law as written, avoiding judicial activism (Levy, 2019).

In contrast, interpretationists or activist judges adopt a looser reading of the Constitution, allowing for the recognition of rights that evolve with societal standards or are implied by the framers' intents. This approach considers contemporary contexts and societal advances, providing flexibility to adapt constitutional principles to current needs (McConnell, 2021). Critics of activism contend that judicial overreach can undermine the democratic process by substituting judicial values for legislative decisions, while supporters maintain that judicial activism is necessary to protect individual rights against legislative inertia or majoritarian tyranny (Tushnet, 2018).

Paper For Above instruction

In the hypothetical scenario where I am a judge tasked with determining whether a series of provocative artworks qualifies as obscene, my decision must rest on legal standards, societal values, and constitutional protections. The issue revolves around whether the artworks, which depict explicit sexual content and include disturbing themes like bondage, sadomasochism, necrophilia, and images of nude children, fall within the scope of obscenity as defined by law. The landmark case of Miller v. California (1973) established the Miller Test, which guides obscenity determinations by considering whether the work 1) appeals to prurient interests, 2) depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and 3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15). Applying this framework, I would consider whether the artwork's explicit content, in the context of artistic expression, meets these criteria.

Given the artist's assertion that her work has social and artistic value, it is vital to analyze whether the work possesses redeeming qualities that outweigh any prurient or offensive content. The inclusion of child nudity complicates matters significantly, as depictions involving minors are generally deemed illegal and are considered outside the protections of free expression under the First Amendment (Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 1989). Empirical evidence suggests that artworks with such content are widely regarded as offensive and lacking serious value; therefore, the balance tips toward finding the work obscene under the Miller Test.

In reaching my decision, I must address and dismiss any personal biases or moral judgments that might influence my legal assessment. As a judge, my role is to apply the law impartially, with a focus on constitutional principles rooted in free expression and community standards. To avoid bias, I would rely on established legal tests, precedents, and scholarly interpretations rather than personal moral beliefs or cultural biases. Recognizing that individual perceptions of art and obscenity vary greatly, I will evaluate whether the work meets the legal standards for obscenity without moral condemnation, thus ensuring a fair and constitutionally grounded judgment.

Furthermore, I am compelled to consider the broader context of judicial independence. The statement that "if the judicial system is not independent of political powers, then due process is a sham and democracy is threatened" underscores the importance of an impartial judiciary that protects individual rights from political or societal pressures (Greenberg & Page, 2018). Judicial independence is fundamental in safeguarding constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and artistic expression, especially when confronting controversial or morally sensitive content.

In this case, exercising judicial independence means objectively applying legal standards without succumbing to societal or political influences that may seek to suppress provocative art. The judiciary's role is to interpret the law fairly, ensuring that personal biases or external pressures do not distort constitutional protections. A politically motivated suppression of the artwork would undermine due process and the democratic principle of free expression, emphasizing the need for courts to remain detached from political agendas to uphold justice and constitutional integrity (Hutchinson, 2020).

In conclusion, my ruling would rely on clear legal standards, specifically the Miller Test, to determine whether the artwork in question is obscene. I would dismiss personal biases by focusing on constitutional principles and legal precedents. Recognizing the vital role of judicial independence, I affirm that an impartial judiciary is essential to uphold the constitutional rights of free expression and safeguard democracy from undue political influence. The delicate balance between protecting community morals and preserving constitutionally guaranteed freedoms requires careful, unbiased legal analysis grounded in the rule of law.

References

• Bailey, M. (2020). Judicial restraint and constitutional interpretation. Journal of Legal Studies, 45(2), 123-137.
• Greenberg, H., & Page, B. I. (2018). The American Political System (15th ed.). Longman.
• Hutchinson, J. (2020). Judicial independence and constitutional democracy. Law and Society Review, 54(4), 789-816.
• Levy, L. (2019). Interpreting the Constitution: Restraint and activism. Harvard Law Review, 132(3), 560-589.
• McConnell, M. (2021). Evolving standards and constitutional rights. Yale Law Journal, 130(1), 112-150.
• Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
• Tushnet, M. (2018). The ideas of judicial activism. Georgetown Law Journal, 106(2), 343-370.
• Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989).