From judging to legislating: The Supreme Court as a law-making body

Type :

Presentation

Pages :

4 pages

Format :

.doc

Published date :

12/18/2008

Category :

Arts & media

Sub category :

Journalism

Oboulo.com selection criteria

$ 6.95 Add to cart

Summary :

Introduction.
1. The judicial branch in the United States: should it exercise activism or restraint.
2. Defining activism and restraint.
Congress as the law-making branch of the federal government.
The court and the power to resolve disputes involving Constitutional questions.
1. The Miranda decision (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966).
2. Congress's direct response to the Miranda decision.
3. The case of Michigan v. Tucker (1974).
4. The case of Dickerson v. United States (2000).
The Dickerson opinion.
Conclusion.

Abstract

Whether the judicial branch in the United States should exercise activism or restraint has been debated since before the constitution was ratified. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were split on the issue, and left Article III of the Constitution purposefully ambiguous, most likely to dodge the issue altogether so the document would be ratified with hopes the first administration would set sound precedent. It was not until Chief Justice John Marshall took that lead in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that judicial review was given adequate credence - despite the fact that many saw even that principle as an abuse of the court's power. In defining activism and restraint, most consider activist judges to break with precedent and see the bench as a vehicle for radical change - even beyond the scope of the court's role in Article III.