Overview
In order to analyze specific Constitutional articles and amendments, it is important to discuss constitutional interpretation. The United States Supreme Court is asked to interpret the Constitution. But what exactly does “interpret” mean? The answer depends a great deal on who you ask. Some scholars believe that the Constitution is “a living, breathing document,” and should be read in a broad manner, allowing for flexibility, and in accordance with society’s changing, contemporary views. This viewpoint is called “judicial activism.” The opposing view would be one requiring “judicial restraint.” In this manner, judges look to the original understanding or meaning of the statute and interpret it accordingly.
Discuss
Read:
https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/doi/abs/10.1080/02722010309481157 to understand the differences and effects of both judicial activism and judicial restraint.
Discuss how the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint affect the law. Use specific current examples from the popular press and/or the field of homeland security. Discuss such topics as: Has the manner in which a law has been interpreted by the Court changed the dynamic of the law itself?
Is there a law that the Court has not interpreted, but could in the future, which could be affected by activism or restraint? Conduct your discussion without being political, but instead sticking to the legalities of the issues.
