The Supreme Court, as Justice Madison puts it, is the Supreme interpreter of the law, and all laws that are not constitutional must be strike down. Brandeis also thinks this way. He thinks the interpreter of the law has supervisory powers. They must be impartial and not allow a citizen or government official to break the law. If citizens break the law, then the appropriate punishment applies according to the statutes; however, if the government breaks the law, then sanctions applies to uphold the integrity of the law. In addition to his stance on the law, he feels the government is not to overstep their boundaries by harming the civil liberties of Americans. Brandeis believes in the Bill of Rights and protecting the original intent of that document. That is why Brandeis dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States and his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California showed his legal and judicial creativity because he constructed arguments to reinforce the protection of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
Brandeis dissent of Olmstead implanted the seed that the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of people. In the case of Olmstead, FBI agents wiretap a bootlegger home …show more content…
In Katz v. Untied States , A gambler was wiretapped by the government at a telephone booth. The case made it to the Supreme Court on the same issue as Olmstead. The dissenting opinion of Olmstead was the basis of the argument used in the ruling of Katz. However, the holding overturned the Olmstead ruling and said that people have an expectation of privacy that society finds reasonable. This ruling prevents government officials from the continuance of unlawfully obtaining evidence and reinforces the Fourth Amendment. It took a liberal court to strike down what was bad law and apply the extension of the Fourth Amendment protection not to property, but to
Brandeis dissent of Olmstead implanted the seed that the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of people. In the case of Olmstead, FBI agents wiretap a bootlegger home …show more content…
In Katz v. Untied States , A gambler was wiretapped by the government at a telephone booth. The case made it to the Supreme Court on the same issue as Olmstead. The dissenting opinion of Olmstead was the basis of the argument used in the ruling of Katz. However, the holding overturned the Olmstead ruling and said that people have an expectation of privacy that society finds reasonable. This ruling prevents government officials from the continuance of unlawfully obtaining evidence and reinforces the Fourth Amendment. It took a liberal court to strike down what was bad law and apply the extension of the Fourth Amendment protection not to property, but to