Supreme Court justices must always think about and interpret the Constitution. When they consider a case, they have to determine if it matches the governing law of the land.
Supreme Court cases are complex. It's rare that interpreting the Constitution is straightforward and easy. So, the nation's highest court uses special approaches, called doctrines. The justices rely on these methods to consider if a case goes against the Constitution or not.
Original Intent
The first is the doctrine of original intent. It involves thinking about the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Justices who follow this doctrine often review historical documents. They do this to try to "get inside the founders' heads." One example of these documents would be The Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Madison's notes at the Constitutional Convention might be considered too. Speeches made during the Constitution's ratifying campaign might be a third source.
A Living Document
Some criticize the original intent method of thinking. They claim that the issues before the court today are more complex than 200 years ago. These critics say current issues were probably never considered by the Constitution's authors. Instead, they view the Constitution as a living document. It can be adapted for changing times, these critics say. A law's constitutionality, they believe, should be judged by considering the entire history of the United States. In short, they say that whether or not a given law is constitutional should reflect society's current conditions and values. Many say this living document doctrine is highly subjective. It comes down to an individual justice's opinion of history, which is a problem.
Plain Meaning Of Text
From these two viewpoints came a third method. It's often called the plain meaning of text doctrine. It says a law's constitutionality is measured against what the words of the Constitution obviously seem to say. Supporters of this method say that it does not require debates about the goals of a small group of men hundreds of years ago. That would set it apart from the original intent doctrine. And unlike the living Constitution theory, it does not invite a personal view of the country's history. However, reviewing the Constitution in terms of what it seems to say is still debated. The Constitution's writers purposely included unclear language. They believed this would help it get confirmed more quickly.
Judicial Restraint Vs. Judicial Activism
Justices consider these different doctrines when voting on a particular case. They also must consider past court decisions, which are called precedents. Should they overturn what previous judges have decided? Sometimes a judge is noted for using judicial restraint. When people exercise restraint, it means they're careful and hold back when deciding whether or not to overturn. Judicial activism, on the other hand, says that sometimes precedents need to be overturned in light of society's conditions today.
Read the section "A Living Document."
Which sentence from the section shows how the living document doctrine can be used to decide on a law's constitutionality?
A
They claim that the issues before the court today are more complex than 200 years ago.
B
These critics say current issues were probably never considered by the Constitution's authors.
C
In short, they say that whether or not a given law is constitutional should reflect society's current conditions and values.
D
It comes down to an individual justice's opinion of history, which is a problem.
C
In short, they say that whether or not a given law is constitutional should reflect society's current conditions and values.
how do you know that
I know that because in the sentence, it states that the living document doctrine believes that "whether or not a given law is constitutional should reflect society's current conditions and values." This statement directly explains how the living document doctrine can be used to decide on a law's constitutionality.
Read the section "Judicial Restraint Vs. Judicial Activism."
Select the sentence from the section that shows why a judge might use judicial activism over judicial restraint.
A
Justices consider these different doctrines when voting on a particular case.
B
They also must consider past court decisions, which are called precedents.
C
When someone exercises restraint, it means they're careful and hold back when deciding whether or not to overturn.
D
Judicial activism, on the other hand, says that sometimes precedents need to be overturned in light of society's conditions today.
D
Judicial activism, on the other hand, says that sometimes precedents need to be overturned in light of society's conditions today.
how
I know that because in the sentence, it states that judicial activism "says that sometimes precedents need to be overturned in light of society's conditions today." This shows why a judge might use judicial activism over judicial restraint, as it suggests that judges who advocate for judicial activism believe that societal conditions may require reevaluating or overturning previous precedents.
Which sentence from the article supports the MAIN idea of the article?
A
It's rare that interpreting the Constitution is straightforward and easy.
B
Justices who follow this doctrine often review historical documents.
C
From these two viewpoints came a third method.
D
They believed this would help it get confirmed more quickly.
C
From these two viewpoints came a third method.