One of the major parts of our government is the Supreme Court. In order to understand what and how a Supreme Court functions, it is essential to comprehend what a judicial court is. The judicial court’s main function is to make sure that all of the laws listed in the Constitution are followed and enforced. In addition, the main solution to many conflicts in cases can be found with the help of the Judicial Court. The Supreme Court is exactly what is appears and sounds to be. The word supreme allows everyone to understand that it the highest ranking court provided in the United States. The Supreme Court position is above all other courts. Initially, there were only 6 members in the Supreme Court as indicated by the Judiciary Act of 1789 . Throughout
…show more content…
Ferguson case was a major case for the Supreme Court of The United States. The plaintiff, Homer Plessy, sat in a Whites only train car and refused to move. Homer Plessy appeared to their eyes as a Caucasian. However, he had a small amount of African American ancestry and was banned by law to sit at these labeled reserved seats. As a result, Plessy was arrested because of his refusal to change train cars. Plessy took legal action and claimed that this law was unconstitutional. He claimed that this type of treatment was a way of legal discrimination. In this court case the phrase “separate but equal” was born. According to the website, History, the law “between the two races did not conflict with the 13th Amendment forbidding involuntary servitude”(2). The court professed that labeling individuals did not mean they were being treated differently. The quality of the facilities that were provided to the African Americans truly demonstrated this treatment as type of discrimination. This was a very important case in which the Supreme Court set these segregation laws and backed them up with the ideology listed …show more content…
One of these views is called “originalism”. Originalism consists of the idea that the way the Constitution should be portrayed is the exact same way in which it was created. Originalists believe that the Constitution should have the same meaning as when it was made. Most of the people who think this way claim that the Constitution has been preserved for a reason this entire time. On the contrary, there are people who believe in the philosophy that the constitution should be a “living document”. Their beliefs revolve around the idea that there is no point in following the Constitution’s old meaning. They claim that our current society and way of living is not the same as it was when this significant document was created. The individuals who are supporters of this reasoning think that it should be able to adapt to the new circumstances the current centuries provide them. In my opinion, the originalist philosophy is better. The Constitution plays a major role in the foundation of the government. If the Constitution were to change, its original significance would be completely lost. Once the citizens of The United States deem it acceptable to tweak the Constitution, they may never stop. As the witness, Justice Antonin Scalia, on a CBN news article claims, “if judges start to redefine the Constitutional text according to their own views, then they have rendered the
Ferguson case was a major case for the Supreme Court of The United States. The plaintiff, Homer Plessy, sat in a Whites only train car and refused to move. Homer Plessy appeared to their eyes as a Caucasian. However, he had a small amount of African American ancestry and was banned by law to sit at these labeled reserved seats. As a result, Plessy was arrested because of his refusal to change train cars. Plessy took legal action and claimed that this law was unconstitutional. He claimed that this type of treatment was a way of legal discrimination. In this court case the phrase “separate but equal” was born. According to the website, History, the law “between the two races did not conflict with the 13th Amendment forbidding involuntary servitude”(2). The court professed that labeling individuals did not mean they were being treated differently. The quality of the facilities that were provided to the African Americans truly demonstrated this treatment as type of discrimination. This was a very important case in which the Supreme Court set these segregation laws and backed them up with the ideology listed …show more content…
One of these views is called “originalism”. Originalism consists of the idea that the way the Constitution should be portrayed is the exact same way in which it was created. Originalists believe that the Constitution should have the same meaning as when it was made. Most of the people who think this way claim that the Constitution has been preserved for a reason this entire time. On the contrary, there are people who believe in the philosophy that the constitution should be a “living document”. Their beliefs revolve around the idea that there is no point in following the Constitution’s old meaning. They claim that our current society and way of living is not the same as it was when this significant document was created. The individuals who are supporters of this reasoning think that it should be able to adapt to the new circumstances the current centuries provide them. In my opinion, the originalist philosophy is better. The Constitution plays a major role in the foundation of the government. If the Constitution were to change, its original significance would be completely lost. Once the citizens of The United States deem it acceptable to tweak the Constitution, they may never stop. As the witness, Justice Antonin Scalia, on a CBN news article claims, “if judges start to redefine the Constitutional text according to their own views, then they have rendered the