Importance Of Judicial Restraint Vs Judicial Activism

978 Words 4 Pages
By any means the Federal courts shouldn 't be able to interpret the U.S. Constitution, they should see it as a living document in which the meaning changes with the times. The courts shouldn 't interpreted the constitution in its original meaning. As the times change and things are viewed differently as they once were, people 's views on things change with the time. Why should we allow the courts to constitution when everyone sees it differently.
The issue of judicial restraint vs. judicial activism is that judicial activism* is generally refers to judges who allow their personal and political views to affect their interpretation of the law, and, consequently, their decisions in important cases. Judicial activists are often accused of ignoring stare decision when making their decisions. (American Psychological Assoc.) For Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. Judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some
…show more content…
As we go through time, things change, people change, and also the way we view or think things change. A great example of this would be slavery, in 1612 everyone thought slavery was a good thing. As the times went by people started to see that it wasn 't a great thing, but some people didn 't want to see it was as bad thing. But as time went by people saw that it wasn 't a good thing, so they made a law excused slavey. Thus the reason why we should leave the constitution as a living document whose meaning changes with the times. Allowing the courts to interpreted its original meaning may confuse people and they might also take it the wrong way. By allowing the constitution to change with the times is letting us (the people of the united states) interrupt the constitution how we see

Related Documents