0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the definition of judicial?
Judicial Interpretation is the method of explaining how the judiciary interprets the law precisely the constitutional documents. There are several approaches like: textualist approach, developmentalist approach and doctrinal approach.
What is the role of interpretation in judicial decision making?
Judicial Interpretation is the method of explaining how the judiciary interprets the law precisely the constitutional documents. There are several approaches like: textualist approach, developmentalist approach and doctrinal approach.
What were US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black's political views?
Hugo Black was a progressive Democratic Senator representing the State of Alabama when President Roosevelt nominated him for the Supreme Court in 1937. As an ardent supporter of the New Deal, and a strong believer in Federalism, Roosevelt believed Black would help change the balance of the a Court hostile to the President's political agenda. Black's tenure on the Court was marked less by a particular political ideology than by a strict legal philosophy, which could be categorized variously as originalist, textualist, and absolutist. Black's approach toward interpreting the Constitution was often at odds with the other Justices' during his early years on the bench. He believed the law of the Constitution was absolute and inviolable (absolutist). He evaluated the Framers' edicts in terms of common language, without abstracting their ideas (textualist). And his deep appreciation of history lead him to consider the Founding Fathers authoritative on the structure of government and liberty. These views formed the basis of his decisions during his tenure on the bench. "It is my belief that there are "absolutes" in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be "absolutes."" (Justice Hugo Black) In some respects, Justice Black's opinions were consistent: When his colleagues sought to expand certain constitutional protections to include corporations, Black dissented on the grounds that the Amendments were only written to apply to individuals. When they supported Congress in imposing limitations on free speech, Black dissented on the grounds that the First Amendment was "at the heart of the Bill of Rights," and unassailable. But when the Court decided the First Amendment should be interpreted broadly to include "expressive conduct," Black again dissented on the grounds that the Constitution specified only freedom of speech and freedom of the press. He could see no justification for protecting conduct, such as flag burning and wearing obscene t-shirts, because these weren't expressly protected by the Founders' document. In other respects, Black's opinions seemed to contradict each other. For example, he strongly supported the "one man, one vote" principle that called for Congressional redistricting, to ensure each vote was fairly represented and carried the same weight; yet he also supported poll taxes, which prevented poor people from exercising the freedom to vote. As a young man, Hugo Black had joined the Ku Klux Klan (which he later admitted was a mistake), believing he needed their political support. On the bench, however, he was an ardent supporter of civil rights, taking part in the Warren Court's unanimous decision to end segregation and extend constitutional protection to African-Americans. Some people have labeled Black an activist for his support of civil rights; in fact, he was simply upholding the words of the 14th Amendment. "All persons" literally meant everyone, as far as Black was concerned, without regard to race. He held personal liberty more sacred than contrived concern for the public interest, and wouldn't allow States to hold hostage African-American rights "for the sake of the community." Black, the alleged activist, was, in reality, a strong proponent of judicial restraint, believing the States and Legislature should be restricted as little as possible as long as their legislation didn't blatantly violate the words of the Constitution. Justice Black was a complex man who described his life's mission as "Human advancement within the limits of constitutional interpretation." He is credited with being one of the most influential justices of the 20th century.
How is the US Constitution a living document?
The US Constitution is metaphorically referred to be living by some because it is thought by many to have lost its meaning if only interpreted in a strict constructionist originalist manner, which would mean that the Constitution is best interpreted to only hold its strict, very limited meaning that applied to 18th century society. Many of the reasons for this are that rulings such as ones ending racial segregation, bans on interracial marriage, and etc, that are generally accepted and now quite popular very well may not have been stopped were it not for a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. The idea of a "living Constitution" has acceptance among many (though not all) because the concept is accepted to have advanced American society and progressed equal opportunities.One prime example is the 14th Amendment's so-called 'Equal Protection Clause', which states:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Originalism would be the philosophy that it should be interpreted to only apply to the historical passage of it - to only apply to freed slaves. Whereas one who prescribes to the philosophy of a 'living Constitution' may take it in a more textualist manner - by what it actually says, "all persons", enabling its interpretation for equal protection on the basis of gender, race (all races, not just freed slaves or African-Americans), disability, or, perhaps - sometimes, sexual orientation.Some would say that the "Federalist Papers" and the "Anti-Federalist Papers" for the actual conversations and debates that went on surrounding the drafting of our Constitution. However, the relevance would be the judicial philosophy of originalism - the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written to apply at its adoption, in the 18th century, and not applied to the changes of social mores and perceptions of things like 'equal protection' among the general populace.
How did Chief Justice Marshall deal with the problem created by James Madison's inaction in Marbury v. Madison?
Marshall declared Section 13 of the The Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, claiming Congress had attempted to extend the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to include issuing writs of mandamus for all government officials, a power Marshall said was not specifically included in Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution. As a result, the Court ruled it did not have proper jurisdiction to hear Marbury's case, except on appeal, and that Marbury would have to first file for relief in a lower federal court.ExplanationFederalist President John Adams appointed 42 members of his own party to justice of the peace positions for Washington, DC, in the waning hours of his administration (these men later became known as the "Midnight Judges" for their last-minute appointment). The incoming President, Thomas Jefferson, leader of the anti-Federalist Democratic-Republican party, saw this, and some of Adams' other last-minute actions, as an attempt to help the Federalist party maintain control of the Judicial branch of government. In response, Jefferson reduced the number of appointments from 42 to 30, then appointed five members of the Democratic-Republican party to some of the remaining seats.William Marbury was among those whose commissions were withheld. He and several other Federalists petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling an official to take a specific legal action). Chief Justice Marshall sent a preliminary order to Jefferson's new Secretary of State, James Madison, to "show cause" why the Supreme Court should not issue the writ of mandamus requiring Madison to provide the plaintiffs with their justice of the peace commissions. Madison ignored Marshall's order.Meanwhile, Congress repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, legislation that had reorganized the federal court system, added 16 circuit judges (again, all Federalist appointments) reduced the members of the Supreme Court from six to five (by attrition), and changed the months of the Court's Term. The net effect was a temporary return to the Judiciary Act of 1789, followed by another set of changes determined by the Repeal Act of 1802, that prevented the Supreme Court from holding sessions in 1802.As Marshall probably suspected, this represented a power struggle between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, as well as between the Executive and Judicial branches of government. Madison's refusal to respond to Marshall's show cause order raised a reasonable concern that he would also ignore any writ of mandamus Marshall might issue. This would weaken the judicial branch relative to the other branches of government, rather than elevate it to a co-equal position of power, as Marshall intended.In order to circumvent the problem, Marshall declared Section 13 of the The Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional claiming Congress had attempted to extend the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to include issuing writs of mandamus for all government officials, a power Marshall stated was not specifically included in Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution. [A comparison between Marbury and many of Marshall's later decisions tends to indicate this was more a rationalized political strategy than his true belief. Marbury is one of the only cases in which Marshall employs a textualist interpretation of the Constitution.]As a result, the Court ruled it couldn't hear the case because it lacked original jurisdiction over the matter, and that Marbury would first have to seek relief in a lower federal court. Marbury never refiled.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)For more information on Marbury v. Madison, see Related Questions, below.
What was the result US Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale?
Engel v. Vitale was a challenge to the practice of prayer in public schools, on the grounds that the prayer violated some students religious traditions. The US Supreme Court held that the state of New York could not authorize or mandate public school prayer because the practice violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This decision ruled prayer in public schools unconstitutional.More InformationIn the early 1960s, the Board of Regents for the state of New York, the official government body overseeing public school education for the state, composed a non-denominational prayer to be recited at the beginning of each day by the principal, teachers and students of the New York public school systems. The Regents' intent to introduce a certain amount of religious and spiritual indoctrination was clear in the text of the prayer:"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."Soon after the schools introduced the prayer, parents of ten students in the Union Free School District No. 9, in New Hyde, New York, petitioned the state courts for injunctive relief against public prayer on the grounds that praying to "Almighty God" was a violation of their religious beliefs.The trial Court upheld the Board of Regents' mandate, but ordered accommodations be made for students who were uncomfortable participating:"This is not to say that the rights accorded petitioners and their children under the 'free exercise' clause do not mandate safeguards against such embarrassments and pressures. It is enough on this score, however, that regulations, such as were adopted by New York City's Board of Education in connection with its released time program, be adopted, making clear that neither teachers nor any other school authority may comment on participation or nonparticipation in the exercise nor suggest or require that any posture or language be used or dress be worn or be not used or not worn. Nonparticipation may take the form either of remaining silent during the exercise, or, if the parent or child so desires, of being excused entirely from the exercise. Such regulations must also make provision for those nonparticipants who are to be excused from the prayer exercise. The exact provision to be made is a matter for decision by the board, rather than the court, within the framework of constitutional requirements. Within that framework would fall a provision that prayer participants proceed to a common assembly while nonparticipants attend other rooms, or that nonparticipants be permitted to arrive at school a few minutes late or to attend separate opening exercises, or any other method which treats with equality both participants and nonparticipants."The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the lower court ruling, and the case was appealed to the US Supreme Court.Supreme Court DecisionBy a vote of 6-1*, the Supreme Court held that the Board of Regents' creation of a prayer, although reasonably neutral and non-denominational, was a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.In the opinion of the Court, Justice Black explained the Founding Fathers' concern that allowing any intermingling of church and government could lead to a form of tyranny that infringes the rights of those whose beliefs are different from the vocal majority. The Court held that religion was in no part the business of government."The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. That same history showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith. The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate."Justice Black went on to explain that the purpose of the First Amendment was not to destroy religion, but to protect the citizens from the religious tyranny the English had experienced at the hands of the state, and that the Colonists had determined to escape. In closing he quoted the author of the First Amendment, James Madison:"[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the New York courts, and declared prayer in public school unconstitutional.* Justices White and Frankfurter took no part in the decision.Case Citation:Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)For more information on the Supreme Court's view of prayer in the public schools, see Related Questions, below.
