Preview

The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Activism

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
650 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Activism
Judicial Activism is a case where the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution in a manner not previously covered either by precedent or by law, thereby changing what was once considered to be legal or illegal, depending on the circumstances of the case. Basically, it is going against the set precedent. This is a view point most often held by reformists, ones that want to change the current standards of society. On the other hand, Judicial Restraint is the antithesis of Judicial Activism, where the Supreme Court follows previous precedents, laws, or interpretations of the constitution, I.E., stare decisis, or let the decision stand in Latin. This means that there are no changes involved here, and all matters in regards to that specific law stay as they are. This viewpoint …show more content…
Code generally barring the registration of handguns, prohibiting carrying a pistol without a license, and requiring all lawful firearms to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.” In a 5v4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Heller, loosening gun control restrictions. This case went against previous cases in regards to the usage and interpretation of the Constitution. According to previous interpretations of the 2nd amendment, in relation to the 1975 Firearm Control Act, the right to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment was mainly reserved for the militia, and did not cover any unusual weaponry, therefore, the general populace was not granted protections according to this law. However, according to this interpretation, an individual is afforded the rights to bear and maintain firearms, mainly within and for the purpose of protecting their
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    District Of Columbia Vs Heller Case Summary
    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages

    District Of Columbia Vs Heller Case Summary

    Along with this the gun needed to be broke down, have a trigger lock, the ammo needed to be store in one room, while the firearm was stored in another room. DC said this needed to be done with the intent of not to use the firearm even in self defense. This violated the second amendment. Heller did not violate the second amendment rights in this case at all. The second amendment states we have the right to bare arms. The only time we are not allowed to carry a firearm on us is if we are a felon, on government or school properties, or selling firearms illegally. Heller was not doing any of these things. He simply wanted to protect himself and his family just like I would if I were him. He was also an officer, so for his job duties he needed a handgun on him at all times for…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Mcdonald Vs Chicago Case Study
    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Mcdonald Vs Chicago Case Study

    2) Facts: Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident, tried to purchase a handgun for the purpose of protecting his home and body but was denied due to a Chicago city ordinance that banned the possession of personal handguns. McDonald filed suit against the city of Chicago under the claim that the 2nd amendment of the U.S Constitution gave individuals the right to own a handgun, and that the 14th amendment for due process made the 2nd binding to the states. The case of District of Columbia v. Heller was used for precedent in this case. The latter case found the banning of personal handguns for the use of protecting the home unconstitutional, however only in D.C. The case did not apply to every state.…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    The Pros And Cons Of Judges In The Supreme Court
    • 239 Words
    • 1 Page

    The Pros And Cons Of Judges In The Supreme Court

    As we know in the Article III of the U.S constitution says that all judges in the Supreme Court and Inferior Courts can have their jobs for the rest of their life. The reasons that the judges can lose their job is by retirement or if they have been accused of any crime.…

    • 239 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Chicago Handgun Laws Pros And Cons
    • 664 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Chicago Handgun Laws Pros And Cons

    On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, ensuring our federally protected right to keep and bear arms in all 50 states. The ruling states that the right to "keep and bear arms" is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. No longer will State or local governments be allowed to ban most Americans from owning most types of handguns. The ruling effectively strikes down Chicago's handgun ban, not unlike the Washington D.C. law that was already ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court two years ago in D.C. v. Heller. Gun Rights Advocates hailed the decision across the Country as a major victory before the "conservative" majority…

    • 664 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Difference Between Judicial Restraint Theory And Judicial Activism
    • 339 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Difference Between Judicial Restraint Theory And Judicial Activism

    The judicial restraint theory is based off the idea that judges should limit the exercise of their own power. For example, it would make judges think before shooting down laws, just because they can, with the exception being that they are unconstitutional. The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism. Judicial activism is when judges make rulings based on politics or personal beliefs rather than the law itself. The main difference between these two philosophies is judicial restraint is a bit more ethical then judicial activism. Both Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor are minorities to the Supreme Court. However, they both have very different viewpoints when it comes to how their race and background play a role in their rulings.…

    • 339 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Pros And Cons Of The Second Amendment
    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Pros And Cons Of The Second Amendment

    The Second Amendment states, “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.” This amendment has caused many debates throughout the years due to the different ways in which it could be interpreted. Most federal appeals courts have said that, when read as a whole, this amendment protects only the rights of the militia to bear arms. However, on a decision made on March 8, 2007, the majority focused on the second clause, saying that the amendment protects the rights of individual people to own firearms as well. The decision was made in a federal appeals court in Washington to strike down a gun control law in the District of Columbia that made it impossible for residents to keep handguns in their homes. The court ruled that banning the right to own firearms was a violation of the Second Amendment.…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Ten Amendments: The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
    • 2498 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Ten Amendments: The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

    The United States Constitution was created on September 17, 1787 as the supreme law of the land. This document outlines the ten amendments which guarantee certain rights that American citizens will always have. One of these freedoms and possibly the most important is the right to keep and bear arms. As written in the Constitution, “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” (U.S. Constitution). Whatever the purpose these guns are meant to serve it is clear that the right to own them cannot be impaired.…

    • 2498 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Philosophy Of Judicial Restraint
    • 249 Words
    • 1 Page

    Philosophy Of Judicial Restraint

    I believe that the judicial restraint philosophy is more appropriate for federal judges to follow because, unlike judicial activism, it does not allow judges to expand vague Constitutional principles to fit their own viewpoint and principles. Judicial restraint does not authorize judges to interpret Constitutional texts and laws (conservative or liberal interpretation) in order to serve their own principles, policies, and considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society. The judicial restraint policy also ensures that separation of powers is applied justly so that different branches of government do not intervene with the power of the other branch. Also, because the Stare Decisis has a huge impact on future decisions and precedent,…

    • 249 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Pros And Cons Of Arguments Against Gun Control
    • 422 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Pros And Cons Of Arguments Against Gun Control

    Those against gun control believe in these private protections. The Framers weren't able to predict everything the future would hold including the rapid growth in crime and violence. James Madison, who wrote the Constitution believed in the freedom and liberty of the individual, he discusses the advantages the private individual in America contained at the time with the right to bear arms compared to the many individuals of the nations in Europe. With the increase in violence and crime within the United States today the beliefs of James Madison and the framers become even stronger. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the court recognizes that the government can regulate gun rights but that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to bear arms. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership. Thus, the Washington D.C. gun ban was overturned just as many other cities have done since then. If we eliminate this right to bear arms then we…

    • 422 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Essay On The Pros And Cons Of The Second Amendment
    • 881 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Essay On The Pros And Cons Of The Second Amendment

    The Second Amendment has been one of the most controversial topics that America faces today. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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" (LII). Under the constitution, you are able to own guns but there has been many restrictions and Acts that control your rights to a minimum. Gun rights reforms are how the Acts and certain limitations are made. These reforms are made to help lower the dangers of these weapons and allow for higher protection. The Second Amendment and Gun Rights should be adapted to today’s society along with certain past events to allow citizens to bear arms publicly. In multiple scenarios, these past event may have been avoided if gun control was open to more eligible citizens.…

    • 881 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Judicial Branch In The 20th Century
    • 1390 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Judicial Branch In The 20th Century

    "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment” Hamilton explained when analyzing the Judiciary’s initial intent. Article 3 section 1 of the Constitution grants the Supreme court “The judicial Power of the United States.” this power can be given to inferior courts such as circuit and district courts as “Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Later, in article 3 section 2, the Judicial branch is granted power that “extend[s] to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” The Judicial branch has explicit power to interpret the intent of past laws, treaties made, and…

    • 1390 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Pros and Cons of Judicial Review
    • 1033 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Pros and Cons of Judicial Review

    is one of the sole purposes of the Supreme Court of the United States. Many…

    • 1033 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Cons Of The Second Amendment
    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Cons Of The Second Amendment

    BATFE and Drake v. Filko. These cases delve into two different situations but both relate the second amendment and the rights it gives to the people. In the case of the NRA v BATFE it dealt with whether individuals between the ages of 18-20 were allowed to buy handguns. The National Rifle Association fought in favor of allowing them to while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives voted in favor of not allowing. Things did not turn out well for the NRA as the court ruled against both of their arguments and determined that not allowing 18-20 year old handguns did not violate the second amendment. The other case, Drake v. Filko was to determine whether the second amendment allowed for the open carry of handguns. The court ruled that the Handgun Permit Law was indeed constitutional. Both of these cases used the case of Dick Heller to help determine their views on the…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Gun Control Research
    • 1416 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Gun Control Research

    The Second Amendment states “"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" (Bill of Rights). It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Americans felt that the right to arms was important for different reasons such as stopping invasions, participating in law enforcement, enabling the people to organize a militia system, preventing an undemocratic government, etc. Later into the twentieth century, a debate had grown about. The question most frequently being asked in many different words are, is the amendment that was created to ensure the continuation and successful of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual’s right to own a firearm. People, gun control advocates, began to read the second amendment concerned with rising violence in society and the role firearms play in that violence. While on the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom and defended their interpretation of the second amendment just as aggressively. Much of the debate that is going on today is centered on how the amendment was phrased and no…

    • 1416 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Gun Control
    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Gun Control

    Gun Control Since the days of the pioneers of the United States, firearms have been part of the American tradition as protection and a means of hunting or sport. As we near the end of the 20th century the use of guns has changed significantly. Because of fast and steady increase in crime and the fight for the right to own a hand gun, the introduction of legislation for gun control, to try to reduce the crime in the United States, has been a hotly debated issue in recent years. Although many people feel that gun control violates the right of the people, given in the second amendment "the right to bear arms", controlling distribution and sales and the registration of guns and gun owners is necessary because of the homicide rate involving guns and the violence by criminals using guns. Many people feel that gun control violates the right of the people given in the second amendment the right "to bear arms". Opponents of gun control, including the National Rifle Association, better known as the NRA, argue that the "right To bear arms" is guaranteed in the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and licensing restrictions penalize law-abiding citizens while in no way preventing criminal use of handguns. It is also argued that by making it difficult for guns to be bought and registered for the American public there is a threat to the personal safety of American families everywhere. However controlling the sale and distribution of firearms is necessary because of the homicide rate involving guns. In 1988 there were 9000 handgun related murders in America. Metropolitan centers and some suburban communities of America are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Larger Metropolitan centers have ten times the murder rate of all Western Europe. For example in Washington,D.C. there was an estimated 400 homicides including guns. In addition gun control has been seen as necessary because of the violence…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More

Related Topics