Judicial Restraintvs.

Judicial Activism&

Judicial Branch Checks

Judicial Restraint

• The belief that a case should be interpreted on the basis of:– the original intent of the Constitution;– the intent of those who enacted the law;– and precedent

• Laws should only be overturned when a CLEAR violation of the Constitution is present

• Courts should interpret the law, not make law

• Ex. – Dred Scott vs. Sanford

Judicial Activism

• The belief that a the Constitution and existing laws should be interpreted on the basis of:– on going changes in beliefs, values, and conditions

• Courts should take an active role in solving social, economic, and political problems

• Courts should act as a “guardian of the people”

• Ex. – Gideon vs. Wainwright (states should provide legal representation to the poor)

Judicial BranchChecks and Balances

• Legislative– Pass constitutional amendments to legalize a policy

that the SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional• 26th Amendment

– Passing a new law– Confirming the President’s judicial appointments

• Executive– Judicial Appointments– Refuse to obey SCOTUS decisions

• Andrew Jackson

King vs. Burwell

• Summarize the arguments for both sides of the case.

• How would the Supreme Court rule if the followed the idea of judicial restraint, and why?

• How would they rule if the followed judicial activism, and why?

• http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/