Justices must by necessity implicitly or explicitly consider questions of wisdom, justice, social harm and morality when deciding if a statute is unconstitutional. They should ensure that all these considerations are rooted in constitutional principles and constitutional questions. Society should not imagine these considerations are not present in judicial reasoning, nor should justices be ruled by them. The questions justices properly ask when deciding if a statute is unconstitutional are shaped by a moral vision of the proper role of the judiciary in representative democracy.
There are times when the correct constitutional reading of a challenged statute is explicit and uncontroversial. In these cases, it would be extremely harmful to the legitimacy of both the court and the constitution to rule in opposition to the uncontroversial reading. However, abundance of clarity leading to homogeneity of opinion is not the norm. In the majority of cases, justices must make choices about how to read the constitution, which precedents are most relevant, what principles to draw from those precedents, whether those precedents should be upheld or modified, when the arguments of dissenting opinions are more convincing than the majority, the natural meanings of words, and the parsing of punctuation. When faced with these questions about the application of the constitution, justices have further choices to make about how best to rule. One choice they might make is to apply an academic theory of interpretation. For example, a justice might ascribe to the original meaning school which holds that the text should be read by modern observes as it would have been by reasonable people when it was written. By contrast, a justice might instead ascribe t...
... middle of paper ...
...overnment is by “consent of the governed”. This principle is applied to the judicial system by limiting the power of judges, and ensuring as many decisions as possibly are made through the democratic process. In the legislature, the most directly democratic of social intuitions, laws are written. It should be in the legislature where the questions of morality, which guide the writing of laws, are publically debated. A system of justice which ignores this moral foundation may be more flexible to punish grossly immoral behavior in individual cases. This advantage in flexibility is not worth the cost in consistency, predictability, and moral legitimacy to the law as a whole.
Works Cited
Regina v. Instan (1893) 1 QB 450
United States. Senate. Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments, Committee on the
Judiciary. 108th Cong., 1st sess. Washington: GPO, 2003.
Originalism, an orthodox principle of legal interpretation, focuses on interpretation pursuant to the original understanding of constitutional words . This incorporates arguments from the ‘text, context, purpose and structure of the constitution’. The originalist method of constitutional in...
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.
John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, created legal precedence in the historical case, Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Throughout history he is portrayed as the fountainhead of judicial review. Marshall asserted the right of the judicial branch of government to void legislation it deemed unconstitutional, (Lemieux, 2003). In this essay, I will describe the factual circumstances and the Supreme Court holdings explaining the reasoning behind Chief Justice Marshall’s conclusions in the case, Marbury v. Madison. Furthermore, I will evaluate whether the doctrine of judicial review is consistent with the Constitution and analysis the positive effects of the doctrine in American politics.
Judicial Restraint- judges should decide cases on the basis of the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution
In legal theory, there is a great debate over whether or not law should be used to enforce morality. The sides of the debate can be presented as a continuum. At one end, there is the libertarian view, which holds that morality is an individual belief and that the state should not interfere in the affairs of the individual. According to this view, a democracy cannot limit or enforce morality. At the other end, there is the communitarian position, which justifies the community as a whole deciding what moral values are, and hence justifies using the law to enforce community values. For libertarians, judges should play a prominent role in limiting the state, while for communitarians, judges should have as small a role as possible. In between these two extremes sit the liberal egalitarians, who attempt to reconcile democratic decision-making about moral values with liberalism. The problem is made more complex when one considers that both law and morality are contested concepts. Two recent cases where this continuum can be illustrated are Canada [Attorney-General] vs. Mossap, and Egan vs. Canada. In this essay, I will attempt to explore some of the issues produced in these two cases. I will begin with a summary each case, followed by an analysis of the major themes involved. I will then place the issues in a larger, democratic framework, and explore the role of law in enforcing morality in a democracy. I will then prove how the communitarian position - as articulated by Patrick Devlin - supports the decisions given in Mossap and Egan, and how even the great proponents of libertarianism - Mill and von Hayek - would agree that the decisions were just. A conclusion will then follow.
views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole,
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
The power the Supreme Court has today stems from the case of Marbury v. Madison: a hearing
...t that, invariably in the three decisions that gave states more rights, a need to curb national government supremacy was a more important factor than the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, the dual federalist approach was not the major factor either because the three aforementioned cases were all decided more as a response to the expansion of national supremacy than a desire to exert states rights. The Supreme Court has not always been capable of following the correct interpretation of the Constitution because of the effects of prior cases and political influences. In order to do so in the future, the Supreme Court need only remember that the constitution was meant to-- enhance national government power, the national government is supreme when its laws are made in the pursuance of the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment gives the states a passive and not aggressive power.
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has an unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many. We must consider whether they are “authoritarian law-makers, or if their profession makes them mere declarers of the law” . In this essay, I will argue the ways that judges do make law as well as discussing the contrary.
It is important to understand the classic debate of Yates v. Hamilton in order to comprehend the context of judicial review in American democracy. Robert Yates was an anti-federalist and judge of the New York Supreme Court who advocated that judicial review was not consistent with the spirit of democratic government. He refused to allow the judicial branch the last word over constitutional interpretation. In his paper, Brutus #11, he contended that the power of the judicial branch would be superior to that of the legislature is the Supreme Court acted as final arbiter of the constitution’s meaning, thus “this power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please. — The manner in which this may be effected we will hereafter examine” (Yates). Yates, above all, believed that the constitution is the mediator between the public and their elected officials. On the other hand, federalist Alexander Hamilton defended the legitimacy of judicial review as the “least dangerous branch” of government. He explained the legitimate status of the courts through the system of checks and balances. Ham...
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
The term ‘judicial activism’ means a court decision suspected of being built or based on individual, political or private reflections instead of the actual law. In America, judicial activism is considered either as conventional or as plentiful. The original retro of American legitimate antiquity was categorized by traditional justice involvement where the Central Supreme Law court was reluctant to allow the conditions or the assembly to permit lawmaking that would control social or financial businesses. Judges should not read between the lines or add their own experiences when it comes to determining what the verdict will be. The United States Constitution is direct, with plainly written sentences and all judges should follow those guidelines.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.