Essay on Judicial Restraint Vs. Judicial Activism

978 Words Oct 28th, 2016 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 debate.
Some may say that the meaning of the Constitution should not be changed with the times. In one article called The Meaning of the US Constitution is Not to Be Found in Evolving Interpretations, it talks about the role of the Supreme Court and it is to interpret the law including the US Constitution. Should the Supreme court be able to interpret the law (US…

Related Documents