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
…show more content…
In this time period under the Warren court, many cases were interpreted under a judicial activist mindset. One of these court cases that arose at this time was Griswold v. connecticut that addressed the use of birth control which had been illegal at the time. The use of birth control was illegal under the Comstock law of 1873 that made it a “crime to sell or distribute materials that could be used for contraception.” The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the constitution supports the use of birth control. The bill of rights (the first 10 Amendments) does not explicitly mention “privacy” but Justice William O. Douglas in writing the majority opinion, legalizing the use of birth control, stated the constitution does give guidance to the interpretation on the right to privacy. “The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
In this time period under the Warren court, many cases were interpreted under a judicial activist mindset. One of these court cases that arose at this time was Griswold v. connecticut that addressed the use of birth control which had been illegal at the time. The use of birth control was illegal under the Comstock law of 1873 that made it a “crime to sell or distribute materials that could be used for contraception.” The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the constitution supports the use of birth control. The bill of rights (the first 10 Amendments) does not explicitly mention “privacy” but Justice William O. Douglas in writing the majority opinion, legalizing the use of birth control, stated the constitution does give guidance to the interpretation on the right to privacy. “The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the