Originalism v. Judicial Activism Throughout the history of the United States of America, there has always been different controversies among our Constitution. To the best of their abilities the Supreme Court of the United States has resolved each of these cases in a manner relating to interpreting the Constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint have been at odds since the adoption of our Constitution in 1787. This continues to this time where the Supreme Court is still ruling on cases that affect our everyday lives. Cases such as Dred Scott, Brown v Board of Education, and Obergefell v. Hodges, are decided using these very interpretations that have influenced some of the most important decisions of the history of the United States.
…show more content…
This has produced both exceptional and atrocious ruling, but it is an ongoing battle for which is correct for the case and for the time. Considering that the Supreme Court makes the final decision and arguably affects our Constitution in the most massive way, this battle is very decisive in how our country is run. Judicial restraint and activism produce two very different, sometimes contrary rulings both with constitutional backing and reasoning. Neither one is better than the other, but the way they affect us provides a very telling story of how our government is and how our society is as a whole. For example the same sex marriage movement of the last year would’ve been ruled very differently fifteen or twenty years ago, due to the fact the courts were more Originalists and since nothing in the Constitution states the federal government 's power to regulate marriage. They would’ve used the 10th amendment to validate their ruling forever leaving it within the individual state’s legislatures to make the decision. These interpretations make our country, our civil liberties, and our civil rights. Both have been used throughout the history of our country and have …show more content…
In Lyng v.Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988), the United States Forest Service was to build a road through the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest and was considering timber harvesting the area. Then found in a study commissioned by the Forest Service that timber harvesting the area would cause irreversible damage to the area that had historically been used by the Yurok, Karok, and Tolowa for religious purposes (Bowen 1986). The United States Forest Service then decided to continue with the construction and the road and the timber harvesting of the area, causing the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association to take action against the Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lyng. In a five to three decision by the Rehnquist Court, in which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy did not vote, they ruled that the Native American’s First Amendment right was not violated because the effect of the roads construction “caused severe adverse effects on the Indians’ practice of their religion” because “it compels no behavior contrary to their belief”. They based their ruling by the precedent set in Bowen v. Roy (1986), the practice used in Judicial Restraint. This can be argued that the ruling went against what would be just in the situation, a practice of Judicial Activism. Yet it was what was constitutional and did not have to abuse the Constitution and Judicial Review to justify the
This has produced both exceptional and atrocious ruling, but it is an ongoing battle for which is correct for the case and for the time. Considering that the Supreme Court makes the final decision and arguably affects our Constitution in the most massive way, this battle is very decisive in how our country is run. Judicial restraint and activism produce two very different, sometimes contrary rulings both with constitutional backing and reasoning. Neither one is better than the other, but the way they affect us provides a very telling story of how our government is and how our society is as a whole. For example the same sex marriage movement of the last year would’ve been ruled very differently fifteen or twenty years ago, due to the fact the courts were more Originalists and since nothing in the Constitution states the federal government 's power to regulate marriage. They would’ve used the 10th amendment to validate their ruling forever leaving it within the individual state’s legislatures to make the decision. These interpretations make our country, our civil liberties, and our civil rights. Both have been used throughout the history of our country and have …show more content…
In Lyng v.Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988), the United States Forest Service was to build a road through the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest and was considering timber harvesting the area. Then found in a study commissioned by the Forest Service that timber harvesting the area would cause irreversible damage to the area that had historically been used by the Yurok, Karok, and Tolowa for religious purposes (Bowen 1986). The United States Forest Service then decided to continue with the construction and the road and the timber harvesting of the area, causing the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association to take action against the Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lyng. In a five to three decision by the Rehnquist Court, in which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy did not vote, they ruled that the Native American’s First Amendment right was not violated because the effect of the roads construction “caused severe adverse effects on the Indians’ practice of their religion” because “it compels no behavior contrary to their belief”. They based their ruling by the precedent set in Bowen v. Roy (1986), the practice used in Judicial Restraint. This can be argued that the ruling went against what would be just in the situation, a practice of Judicial Activism. Yet it was what was constitutional and did not have to abuse the Constitution and Judicial Review to justify the