Judicial Restraint

The judicial branch is constituted by different parts in order to interpret the laws through the process of judicial review. Also, each part of the people has their own task and certain power when changing or improving the laws.

Judicial restraint and judicial activism are relevant in the United States and are related to the judicial system of a country. They are also a check against the inequitable use of the power of the constitutional body. However, they have the opposite way to deal with this kind of problem. Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial analysis that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. The principle of restraint urges judges to refrain from deciding legal issues, and especially constitutional ones, unless the decision is necessary to the resolution of a concrete dispute between adverse parties. People only work on the individual case but not the other task. They restrain themselves from setting new policies with their decisions. Moreover, judicially-restrained judges

They are both under the constitution and hold different ideas of following the law. Original intent is the actual aim or purpose especially of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The court should interpret the text by understanding what is the author thinking about and know what they are expecting to achieve in the future. It is an important task for the court to realize the purpose of the writer. Also, original intent means there’s only a single and unified intent behind the text. Besides, the living constitution is the law that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended. The living constitution is really essential to the current society. Although the constitution is used nowadays, the society develops at a fast speed and has a big change. So, the living constitution can along with time change and fit the current modern