The contention that the Constitution contains moral language that justifies the vigorous protection of individual rights by the judiciary is a view compatible with
a. judicial activism.
b. judicial restraint.
c. analytical jurisprudence.
d. precedent-based jurisprudence.
e. moral relativism.
is it D?
i think it is d
To determine the correct answer, let's first understand the key terms in the question:
Constitution: The fundamental law of a nation that establishes the framework of government and outlines the rights and freedoms of individuals.
Moral language: The use of language that expresses values, ethics, and principles related to what is right and wrong, just and unjust.
Justifies: Provides a rational basis or reasoning to support a particular action or belief.
Vigorous protection: Strong and active safeguarding of something.
Individual rights: Rights that are granted to individuals and protected from interference by the government or other individuals.
Judiciary: The branch of government responsible for interpreting and applying the law.
Now, let's examine the options:
a. Judicial activism: This refers to the philosophy that judges should interpret the Constitution in light of current societal values and actively protect individual rights beyond what may be explicitly stated in the Constitution. It aligns with the contention that the Constitution contains moral language justifying the vigorous protection of individual rights.
b. Judicial restraint: This refers to the philosophy that judges should interpret the Constitution strictly and not expand or invent rights beyond what is explicitly stated. It does not align with the contention, as it is more focused on limiting judicial discretion.
c. Analytical jurisprudence: This refers to the study and analysis of legal principles, rules, and doctrines. While it is not directly related to the contention, it does not contradict it either.
d. Precedent-based jurisprudence: This refers to the practice of relying on previous court decisions (precedents) when deciding current cases. It is not directly relevant to the contention.
e. Moral relativism: This is the belief that moral judgments are subjective and vary depending on cultural, personal, or situational factors. It is not directly relevant to the contention.
Considering the above analysis, the option that aligns with the contention that the Constitution contains moral language justifying the vigorous protection of individual rights by the judiciary is option a. Judicial activism. Therefore, the correct answer is a.