Options Menu: Forum


Topic: Interpreting the U.S. Constitution

Consider the following scenario: The Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson once argued against the doctrine of judicial review. He believed in the principles of "checks and balances," whereas the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court have equal authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. It is undisputed that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding (Article VI). However, at times, the Supreme Court makes decisions that challenge Christian principles, such as its decision on abortion.

Therefore:
a) Should judicial review be eliminated? Provide a detailed explanation for your answer.
b) If judicial review were eliminated, what alternative means could be used to interpret the meaning of the Constitution?

Again -- how would you like Jiskha tutors to help you with this assignment?

By ansering the questions... I've read the constitution and all my materials, but not really sure what to say. Ugh!!!

You first have to make a decision about what YOU think. Should courts be able to interpret laws and declare them wrong if the judges feel these laws go against the Constitution?

Why do you believe that?

Thank you..

You're welcome.

I bet you go to Liberty

a) Should judicial review be eliminated? Provide a detailed explanation for your answer.

Determining whether judicial review should be eliminated requires considering the advantages and disadvantages of this principle. Judicial review is the power of the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to declare laws and actions of the government unconstitutional. Here are a few reasons for and against eliminating judicial review:

Reasons to eliminate judicial review:
1. Upholding the principle of checks and balances: Eliminating judicial review would align with Thomas Jefferson's belief in the equal authority of the three branches of government. This would ensure that no single branch has undue power in interpreting the Constitution.
2. Promoting democratic decision-making: By eliminating judicial review, decisions on constitutional issues would be left to the elected representatives in the government, allowing for a more direct democratic process.

Reasons to maintain judicial review:
1. Protecting individual rights: Judicial review acts as a safeguard against potential infringements on individual rights by the government. It provides a mechanism to void laws that violate the Constitution and thereby protects the rights of citizens.
2. Ensuring the rule of law: Judicial review helps maintain the supremacy of the Constitution as the highest law of the land. It prevents government overreach and promotes adherence to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Ultimately, the decision to eliminate judicial review would have far-reaching implications and requires careful consideration of the potential consequences. It would involve a significant redistribution of power among the branches of government and could impact the protection of individual rights and the rule of law.

b) If judicial review were eliminated, what alternative means could be used to interpret the meaning of the Constitution?

In the scenario of eliminating judicial review, alternative means would be needed to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Here are a few possible alternatives:

1. Legislative interpretation: The role of interpreting the Constitution could be given solely to the legislative branch, specifically to the elected representatives in Congress. They could pass laws and resolutions to clarify and interpret constitutional provisions, ensuring that the Constitution is understood and applied in a manner consistent with the evolving values and needs of society.

2. Popular interpretation: Another option could be to emphasize the role of the people in interpreting the Constitution. This could involve holding public referenda or allowing citizen juries to deliberate on constitutional matters. By directly involving citizens, this approach aims to ensure a more democratic, inclusive, and participatory interpretation process.

3. Constitutional conventions: Periodic conventions could be convened to re-evaluate and interpret the Constitution. These conventions, composed of legal scholars, elected officials, and citizens, would discuss and deliberate on constitutional issues to provide a contemporary interpretation based on the prevailing societal values and concerns.

It is important to note that these alternative means of interpreting the Constitution have their own advantages and disadvantages. The choice of an alternative to judicial review needs to be carefully evaluated and should prioritize achieving a fair, democratic, and informed interpretation of the Constitution.