Restraint and Activism
Judicial activism is loosely defined as decisions or judgements handed down by judges that take a broad interpretation of the constitution. It is a decision that is more of a reflection of how the judge thinks the law should be interpreted rather than how the law has or was intended to be interpreted. There are many examples of judicial activism; examples include the opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor in the Lynch v. Donnelly and the Wallace v. Jaffree trials. Sandra Day argues for the changing of the First Amendment's ban on "establishment" of religion into a ban on "endorsement" of religion. Others include US v. Kinder where our congress passed legislation that would require a minimum sentence for persons caught distributing more than 10 grams of cocaine. Judge Leval used a weighing method suggested by the sentencing commission rather than the method required by congress. The different method used did not trigger the mandatory sentence whereas the congressional method would have.
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
Judicial restraint is loosely defined as decisions or judgements that take a narrow interpretation of the constitution. It reflects a respect for the law as it has been enacted by the Legislature. Rather than creating new laws from broad interpretations. For myself, it is somewhat harder to distinguish what judicial restraint is. An example of judicial restraint would be the 1996 case of Bowers v. Hardwick. Hardwick was charged with violating the Georgia statute of sodomy by committing a sexual act with another male in the bedroom of his home.
After two hours of interrogation by the police, Miranda wrote a complete confession, admitting to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl ten days earlier. Alvin Moore was assigned to represent Miranda at his trial which began June 20th, in front of Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Yale McFate. It was pointed out that Miranda had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment right to have an attorney present during police questioning. Despite that he had not been informed of his rights, Miranda was convicted, forcing him to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The charges as well as the verdict remained the same. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 1965. Criminal Defense Attorney John Flynn agreed to represent Miranda in Alvin Moore’s stead. The Supreme Court agreed that the written confession was not acceptable evidence because of Ernesto’s ignorance of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the police’s failure to inform him of them. Then state of Arizona re-tried him without the confession but with Twila Hoffman’s testimony. He was still found guilty and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison, but this case set precedence for all other cases of this
This example of a Supreme Court case shows that the court is not above politics. Even though most Americans, including government officials, practiced some form of Christianity, the judges were not willing to compromise the information in the Constitution for the popular beliefs of individuals. I agree with the Supreme Court in its decision to ban the practice of prayer in public schools. Not only does it violate the Constitution, but it encroaches on our freedom of thought and action. Being excluded from a public classroom because of personal beliefs does not sound just.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
Miranda vs. Arizona Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. Individual rights did not change with the Miranda decision, however it created new constitutional guidelines for law enforcement, attorneys, and the courts. The guidelines ensure that the individual rights of the fifth, sixth and the fourteenth amendment are protected. This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning, anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law. The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects.
Facts: The petitioner Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was taken into police custody on March 13, 1963. Miranda was taken from his home because he was accused of raping and kidnapping a young woman. The petitioner Miranda 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was the interrogated none stop for two hours by two different officers who failed to mention to him that a right to an attorney at law. He did not have to confess to anything. The officers at hand admitted to knowing they did not read him his rights but even still Miranda 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was found guilty because he still signed a paper saying he had confessed to the crime at hand. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and the lower courts decided that he still confessed which was good enough for them and even though his rights were not read, He technically never asked for an attorney.
This case established the power of judicial review in the U.S. Supreme Court. This power was later extended to all Federal Courts. This empowered Federal Courts to decide legal issues raised by state constitutions and common-law decisions that may violate the Constitution. They are to review laws that are enacted by The President and Congress, identify and invalidate those that violate the Constitution of the United States.
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
One of the Judicial Branch’s many powers is the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the other branches of governments’ actions are constitutional or not. This power is very important because it is usually the last hope of justice for many cases. This also allows the court to overturn lower courts’ rulings. Cases like Miranda v. Arizona gave Miranda justice for having his rules as a citizen violated. The court evalutes whether any law was broken then makes their ruling. Also, the Weeks v. United States case had to be reviewed by the court because unlawful searches and siezures were conducted by officers. One of the most famous cases involving judicial review was the Plessey v. Ferguson
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
The Roe v. Wade case originated in the state of Texas in 1970 at the suggestion of Sarah Weddington an Austin attorney. Norma McCorvey otherwise known as "Jane Roe" was an unmarried pregnant woman seeking to overturn the anti-abortion law in the state of Texas. The lawsuit claimed that the statue was unconstitutionally vague and abridged privacy rights of pregnant women guaranteed by the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments to the constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
It can be argued that during the end of the Civil War and the "Separate but Equal" era, in cases such as the Brown v. Board of Education, Baker v. Carr, Missouri ex. Rel. Gaines v. Canada, and Sweatt v. Painter. The more recent, Bush v. Gore case is a fine example of judicial activism. Judicial Restraint, on t... ...
Judicial activism and judicial restraint are entirely different systems. Judicial activism is the perception of the Constitution to advise modern values. Judicial activism has a considerable part in devising social policies on problems like protecting the rights of an individual, civil rights, and when there is unfairness in politics. The purpose of judicial activism is to create political adjustments when it is needed in specific situations. If judicial activism is used, it has power to overrule certain judgments or acts of Congress. This has been interpreted by some to negatively impact other branches of government. Some believe that this damages the rule of law and democracy. In judicial restraint, the court should uphold all acts of the