Mcdonalds Vs City Of Chicago Judicial Activism

Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism in McDonald v. City of Chicago Judicial Restraint is when the Supreme Court restricts their powers to avoid making any changes to public policy, unless that policy is unconstitutional. When applying judicial restraint to cases, the courts stand by stare decisis (previous decisions of the court), uphold current law, and hold strictly to the text of the Constitution. They think that by only interpreting the constitution and not creating new laws, that they are preserving the laws that this country was founded on. Judicial activism is the opposite. Judicial Activism is when the Supreme Court is willing to change the public policy that has been put into place. Judges who practice judicial activism are considered policy makers. Many of the laws that are passed often depend on what the society needs as a whole. As Pacelle stated in his book, “It is important to note that though many people equate judicial activism with
City of Chicago case as being judicial restraint, it can also be interpreted as judicial activism. The decision of McDonald v. the City of Chicago made Chicago change its law. In the City of Chicago, with a permit, the people of and around Illinois are allowed to carry handguns. Before the Heller v. City of Chicago case, the precedent on guns was set by United States v. Miller case of 1939. In United States v. Miller, Jack Miller gets in trouble for carrying a saw-off shotgun across state borders. He argues that the regulating firearms is against the second amendment. The Supreme Court decided that because of Article 1, Section 8 (the militia clause), that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an