Locate and summarize two news articles on a current issue being debated by the Supreme Court OR that is likely to soon undergo judiciary review. You may chose your own topic or check out an articlefrom the topical list below. I ask that you read two articles so that you can gain a fuller understanding of the topic (this is your only assignment through Thanksgiving break.)
Explain how this article relates to the Marbury case and the concept of Judicial Review.
Finally, answer the framing questions for this assignmnent:
Does judiciary review promote or hinder the democratic process in the United States?
and
What are the benefits and limitations of the structure of the judiciary branch of the US government?
Remember to comment on at least one other student's posts.
Your response should be at least 200 words.
Suggested topics and links (based on student suggestions):
death penalty
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9A02E4DF1F3FF936A25753C1A9659C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/politics/17abortion.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
abortion
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/washington/13scotus.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
internet pornograpgy
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9D00E7DE1F38F937A35754C0A9629C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEEDB1238F933A05755C0A9629C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
medicinal marajuana
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E4DF1F3FF936A25753C1A9659C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Teresa Konopka
Block H
AP US
In current events, it seems as if judicial review has not died out after the Marbury versus Madison case. If anything, the constitution is being dissected more now than it ever was.
Giuliani Vexes Audiences With His Abortion Views by Michael Cooper mainly discusses Giuliani’s view on abortion. According to the article, he believes that the procedure is morally wrong. However, he put his own beliefs aside for a moment and said that the ultimate decision should be up to the women themselves. Like in the Marbury case, Giuliani was interpreting the Constitution on his own and staying true to the tenth Amendment. By doing so, he promoted the democratic process in the United States. Technically speaking, Giuliani's interpretations aren’t entirely judicial review since he is not a member of the Supreme Court, but he does illustrate that Amendments hinder personal convictions in his case.
Antipornography Law Keeps Crashing Into First Amendment by John Schwartz is an excellent example of judicial review. Basically, the Supreme Court ruled against internet pornography. They interpreted the constitution on their own and made their decision final, even with the first Amendment. Like the Marbury case, the Supreme Court used the idea of America as a whole. After all, Marbury’s commission would primarily affect him, not millions of children (regardless of his potential as a role model). With the pornography case, the democratic process was hindered for the better. Sure, the case went against the first Amendment, but young children’s eyes were somewhat shielded from libidinous images. This case shows limitations of the public and the benefit of overall decision-making that the Supreme Court has.
Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Say Doctors May Not Be Punished for Recommending Medical Marijuana by Linda Greenhouse showed how the Supreme Court defended medical marijuana. In the case, it seems as if the justices sympathized for the many patients suffering. Like the Marbury case, the justices took the law into their own hands and made a decision based on importance. Sure, no commission would cause Marbury excruciating pain, but no medical marijuana for certain patients could. The democratic process was promoted with the case since the justices sided with their sickly democratic counterparts whom were desperately in need of psychedelic medication. Still, the Supreme Court was limited in the sense that its decision still did not make it impossible for doctors to loses their license and not be able to prescribe medical marijuana.
Response to AP Students:
If you were a Supreme Court justice, would you have sided with the verdicts history tells us have been decided? Why or why not?
Sarah Berfond
“It is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each…So if a law be in opposition to the constitution…the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case.” (Marbury v. Madison) On November 20, 2007 the Supreme Court announced that it would decide whether the District of Columbia’s ban on gun ownership violates the second amendments grantee of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Washington law states that guns cannot even be kept in a private home for self defense. The Supreme Court has never ruled that the second amendment has applied to the states. The court has applied almost every other provision of the Bill of Rights to the states. This case presents a classic example of the doctrine of the judicial review first applied in the case of Marbury vs. Madison. The Supreme Court must now decide on the conflict between the Washington statute and the second amendment.
The concept of judicial review benefits the democratic progress in the United States. Although the elected legislatures create laws sometimes it is necessary to keep them in check when there is an abuse of power. Even in a democratic society, law makers can act like monarchs and pass laws which are not in the interest of the country or state. Having the judicial branch available to balance the power with the executive and legislative branches, helps protect democracy and the democratic process. The judiciary branch is broken up into three separate courts. The district court is where trials take place and facts are determined. The circuit court of appeals reviews the district courts decisions and application of the law. The Supreme Court is the final decision maker for all federal actions. The structure had some limitations. It is a complicated and time consuming process for a case to get from the trial court all the way up to the Supreme Court. In addition very few cases get heard by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately none of the judges in the judiciary branch are elected by the citizen, which contradicts the true meaning of democracy. However these limitations are outweighed by the benefits of the structure. The appellate review process is a fair and practical way to make sure that the laws and constitution are applied fairly and accurately to all Americans. The Washington gun case has caused me to question my own beliefs. I do not believe anyone should ever use a gun except the military or police. However I believe it is important for the constitution and all the amendments to be enforced by the courts.
Response to Teresa- The articles you described were both interesting and thought provoking. I agree that sometimes people have to put their morals aside to decide what is right for the community. Unfortunately the constitution contains many grey areas which are the cause of many of these cases. Luckily a group of Americans make the final decisions in the Supreme Court instead of one government leader.
Heather Vale. :]
The article “Giuliani Vexes Audiences with his Abortion Views” by Michael Cooper in the New York Times portrays Giuliani’s mixed views on the topic of abortion and how it should be dealt with. Overall, Giuliani believes the abortions are morally wrong, yet he believes the ultimate decision should be up to the women. Besides being pro-choice, Giuliani expresses his thoughts of the Supreme Court. Referring back to the Marbury case, Giuliani is aware that the power of the Supreme Court is not light, but very affective. The concept of Judicial Review allows the people on the Court have the authority to interpret a law based on their background, ideas, and beliefs.
Thus, Giuliani reflects on the importance to have reliable and understanding judges to represent our Supreme Court. “‘We’re seeking to find judges who understand the very, very important concept that judges exist to interpret the law, not to invent the law’ ” Personally, this motivates me to become a member of the Supreme Court! Only one lady, Sandra O’Connor, has ever served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The women of today are not being represented as well as they should be. No one really notices how important our Supreme Court is, as they basically hold the power to limit the people’s power. So depending on the people of the Supreme Court and their decisions will indicate whether judicial review will limit or benefit the democratic process in the U.S. It is our duty to make sure the best of the best representatives are up and running the Supreme Court.
Likewise, the article “Case Touches a 2nd Amendment Nerve” by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times questions whether an individual still has the right to “keep and bear arms.” With the existence of the 2nd Amendment, this delicate topic has been avoided and ignored for a long period of 70 years. If Americans are allowed to keep and bear arms their must be safety requirements and guidelines that follow it. Of course there are always ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’. So if there were no guns to start with, then we wouldn’t be experiencing such a situation.
Violence in this world is purely irrelevant. Guns just add onto the negativity piling up in this world. Of course there is the aspect of safety, yet there would be no safety to worry about if all arms were non-existent. In this article, it is noticeable that most Americans are upset with the Supreme Court and their power. Implying that they are inconsiderate, Clarence Thomas has clear issues with Marbury’s Case and its many outcomes because of it. Given the power to interpret law is a dangerous move, as our future relies on the Supreme Court’s decisions.
Sarah, I agree with you in the sense that the Constitution contains many grey areas. These Amendments and laws were not specific enough for the society of 2007. It is pretty interesting to think that a group of Americans make the final decisions, however it would have been better if America as a whole was able to make the final decisions. Yet, from experience I know that we cannot agree on one specific situation. From diverse backgrounds and beliefs, we all seem to enjoy contradicting and debating each other.
Abortion and internet pornography are two current important issues being debated by the Supreme Court. While, Rudolph Giuliani is against abortion, he thinks the choice should be up to the mother, not the government. However, he also vowed to appoint conservative judges who “might be expected to rule against abortion.” He also said, “We’re seeking to find judges who understand the very, very important concept that judges exist to interpret the law, not to invent the law.” He then praised the Supreme Court Justices who voted to limit abortion rights as models of the kind of justice he would appoint. This makes everything he says seem hypocritical. It is confusing because he seems to be going back on his word with everything he says.
Internet pornography has constantly been brought up by federal and state law makers. They are looking for a way to ban it in order to maintain child safety, but these laws have been struck down as violating the first amendment. Recently the Supreme Court sent the decision back to the District Attorney. Ann Beeson, the lawyer who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the ruling showed “that there are many less restrictive ways to protect children without sacrificing communication intended for adults.”
I agree with Sarah that the concept of judicial review promotes the democratic progress in the United States. Just because a lawmaker is in a democratic society, it doesn’t mean they can’t become power hungry and pass unfair laws. The judicial branch gives a fairer balance of power with the executive and legislative branches to help protect democracy.
Ashley Aydin.
Block H.
AP US History.
The Marbury V. Madison case was the first time judicial standards were questioned in the United States. Paving the way as the basis for the exercise of judicial evaluation, the case granted the Supreme Court the power to decide if matters are unconstitutional or fit. Today, the Supreme Court faces issues that are highly debated and controversial.
Two publicly overlooked Supreme Court concerns are freedom of speech for students and the right to keep handguns/arms at home.
Should students have the right to express their true opinions and judgments in the classrooms? Is it safe to allow families to keep weapons for protection? Chiefly – what is unconstitutional or not? “Supreme Court Limits Student Speech” by MSNBC and “Supreme Court to Rule on Right to Keep Handguns at Home” by David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times have detailed the divisive dilemmas.
For years, students have wanted to walk into school with t-shirts expressing their values of religion, law, gender, and society. Even more significant, they have desired to verbally state their estimations. Nonetheless, such wanting has yet to be acknowledged. “Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate. The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.”
Based on the principles and founding of this country, students should have the privilege of fully expressing themselves. Unless dodgy or deeply threatening, a student’s viewpoint should be publicized and prided. Education is, in fact, about learning and growing upon new and innovative material. With distinct groups of people at middle schools, high schools, and universities, everyone can experience the essence of being free while existing as a part of a hodgepodge of dissimilar people. Wasn’t cooperation what our fore fathers worked toward in the first place?
Likewise, the right to weaponry at home has become a disputed topic. Many American families have been concerned about their protection and likeliness of being susceptible to harm. “While outright bans on the private possession of guns are rare, many cities and states regulate firearms. If the high court rules in favor of gun owners, the decision could open the door to challenges to regulations and restrictions on firearms across the nation. In their appeal, District of Columbia officials say their ban on easily concealed handguns dates back to 1858. And they argue handguns are involved in most violent crime. Under the city ordinance passed in 1976, residents may keep shotguns or hunting rifles at home, but these weapons must be disassembled or have trigger locks. Handguns are illegal, except in the hands of police officers.”
Indeed, guns have proven to be unsafe. Although firearms are used as a mean of security, the weapons should not be open to the public. There have been far too many incidents involving arms that were easy to obtain. Accordingly, this rules a case where countless citizens have taken advantage of their personal rights and liberties.
Generally, both articles seemed to come to the conclusion that total freedom is entirely ideal. Judiciary review, although limiting, can be beneficial with regards to our wellbeing and unity of our nation. With many different views in our country, it is hard to achieve one, concrete solution. Thus, the Supreme Court serves as a soother of outlooks, making their decisions with thought and caution – something we can never do as a mixed populace.
*Heather’s view on the Supreme Court and decision making within America is common. I, too, believe that all Americans should participate in the acts of the Supreme Court. However, it would cause much tension and distraught, seeing that hardly anyone is fully alike in their reasoning.
Writing to compliment the students' fine work on responding to the judicial review prompt. I teach AP US History at a school in central Maine and also use these types of assignments to tie "stale" history (not my view but the view of many) with modern day situations.
It is with the above in mind that I would like to draw your attention to a commentary that appeared last month in our local paper. The premise concerned the Supreme Court's ability to affect "law making" as opposed to "law interpreting". I assigned this for my students and received positive feedback about the assignment.
Should you be interested the article may be found at:
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view/columns/4344296.html
Jeff Jewett
Lawrence High School
jjewett@msad49.org
Justin Lefkowitz
AP US History
H Block
Judicial Review is the power and authority of the courts to review controversial laws and to determine whether or not the laws are constitutional or unconstitutional. The first court case to ever undergo judicial review was Marbury v. Madison, which analyzed Article 3 of the US Constitution. Marbury v. Madison officially allowed the power of the federal courts to overturn any congressional and state legislation if it appears to be unconstitutional.
Today, several issues are being debated in the courts, and, some of them have already started to undergo judicial review. Others seem to be in the process of forming into a case that might be viewed under judicial review. One case that is seen under judicial review today is Abortion. One case that is in the process of turning into a case that is capable to undergo judicial review is the one on Internet Pornography.
Abortion is a topic that is created and enforced by the state; therefore, it is not a federal law. In the world today, abortion is one of the most viewed and debated topics among lawyers and students. Since it is such a debated topic, it is viewed as one of the deciding factors that one will be looking for when trying to determine who they will vote for in the 2008 Presidential Election. According to the article “Giuliani Vexes Audiences With His Abortion Views” by Michael Cooper, abortion is one of the topics that Giuliani touches upon on the campaign trail. On his campaign trail, Rudy “has made the case that while he believes that abortions are wrong, he thinks the ultimate decision of whether to have them should be up to women, and not the government. But he has also pledged to appoint the kind of conservative judges who might be expected to rule against abortion.” Abortion is one of the cases that are currently undergoing judicial review. The only thing is that the Supreme Court cannot do anything about abortion because the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution backs up the abortion laws. The Tenth Amendment basically says that the federal government has no say in any of the topics that are looked at as state laws. Since abortion is a state topic, the federal government and the Supreme Court cannot overturn the rules of any states laws on abortion. That would be illegal.
Internet Pornography is another topic that is being debated amongst lawyers and students from all over the United States. The Child Online Protection Act is a law in the US that is supposed to protect minors from sexual material on the Internet. According to “Antipornography Law Keeps Crashing Into First Amendment” by John Schwartz, the problem with this law is that it violates the First Amendment. “For more than eight years, federal and state lawmakers have looked for ways to restrict Internet pornography in the name of protecting children from material deemed 'harmful to minors.' And again and again, the laws have been struck down as violating the First Amendment.” The COPA ruins the Freedom of Speech and Press talked about in the First Amendment. Since the COPA contradicts the First Amendment, it has been said by the Supreme Court that it cannot be fully legalized to the extent that many would like.
Judiciary Review, in my opinion, definitely promotes the democratic process in the United States because judicial review allows the laws to change. If judicial review was non-existent, there would be no chance at changing the laws of the legislature.
There are several benefits and limitations of the structure of the judiciary branch of the United States. One benefit of the structure of the judiciary branch is that it protects the citizen’s inalienable rights from the Constitution. One limitation of the structure of the judiciary branch is that the American citizens do not have a large say in the laws being created by legislature. Like Heather and Ashley previously stated in their blogs, Americans should participate in the acts of the Supreme Court. Even though it might cause tension and distraught, the American people would still be happy to get a say in the laws being passed by the courts. I am all for this idea. Whenever the Supreme Court is reviewing a law, I think that the people should vote on what they feel should happen. This idea is genius.
Congrats to Ms. Francis for prompting your students to make such insightful comments that you have provoked Jeff Jewett, a teacher from Maine, to respond to their comments. I must also compliment our students as I have noticed greater depth in your writing and more us of supporting details and quotations to prove your points.
The issue Jeff brought up, the Supreme Court's ability to "make laws" is an interesting one especially in view of the Court's stated purpose. This issue of the Court legislating law has been hotly debated many times throughout history and is one that would be interesting for students to weigh in on.
I also loved reading your Bill of Rights interviews. It is interesting to read about different peoples' perspectives as well as to see how well informed people are, whether the average person cares about these issues, and whether and how these issues affect peoples' daily lives.
Elizabeth Che
Block H
As Sarah, Ashley and Justin noted, Marbury v. Madison challenged the judicial standards of the United States, however, led to Marshall’s Judicial Review that allowed the Supreme Court to decide if a case was unconstitutional. But, at the same time judiciary review led to the promotion of democratic process in the United States as legislation is changed to maintain the balance set by the amendments. The judges of the Supreme Court are nominated by the president and are to be confirmed/approved by the majority of the Senate. Although the Senate approves of the judges position, the Supreme Court does not represent the wishes of the other branches but the ideals of their own justice within the borders of law and past examples. And so, in controversial cases where the Supreme Court is needed, the justices are to decide upon a decision using their own logic. In such cases, they seem to decide on a neutral point, keeping the executive and legislative branch in balance.
The judiciary branch of the US government serves as the listeners of cases that challenge the interpretations of approved legislation passed by Congress. Although the justices are assigned the position for life unless removed by retirement or impeachment, they maintain the set ideals to what is by law constitutional. Had there been office changes every few terms, cases that have been decided may be un-agreed by the new justices, thus creating an unsettling conflict. On cases such as internet pornography and medical marijuana, the Supreme Court is looked to for their confirmation of the regulations. But, as with Marbury v. Madison, the boundaries for the acts of the branches are questioned.
As described in New York Time’s “Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Say Doctors May Not Be Punished for Recommending Medical Marijuana” by Linda Greenhouse, the “Bush administration called the Ninth Circuit’s ruling ‘an unprecedented judicial intrusion on the executive branch’s investigatory authority.’” The Supreme Court ruled that “doctors may not be investigated, threatened or punished by federal regulators for recommending marijuana as a medical treatment for their patients” but opposing this view was the Bush administration that had another interpretation for the freedom of speech rights of doctors and “the principles of federalism.” In this case, it is the justices responsibility to state the interpretation that is intended and act accordingly to their views. Thus, opposing the executive branch in the interpretation of the first amendment. On a similar note, internet pornography was also argued pertaining to the first amendment.
“Antipornography Law Keeps Crashing Into First Amendment” by John Schwartz notes how federal and state lawmakers were “struck down as violating the First Amendment.” Within the view that antipornography regulations would just “sent providers of pornography overseas,” as those seeking it are prompted to seek for another source if their main providers are shut off. Thus providing no revolvements as to protect minors from harmful influences. A more convenient practice is for computers to be installed with filtering software instead of “age-verification schemes”. But, it was this for the freedom of speech that the Supreme Court sent the “Child Online Protection Act back to the District Court.”
Judicial review proved to be a challenge to the interpretations of laws and cases from a higher point of view while maintaining the ideals previous head figures had fought for. Justices are like the elders in a tribe providing their intellectual knowledge and interpretations to guide the nation to set foundations.
John Harden
Block H
It seems as though the legacy of the Marbury vs. Madison case lives on today, stronger than ever. Many controversial issues have already entered or are entering congressional debate and judicial review. Many rights that have been given to American citizens today would not exist if Chief Justice John Marshall did not grant Supreme Court Judicial Review in the early 1800s. The Article found on CNN.com titled “Will evangelicals choose Giuliani over faith?” by Roland S. Martin shows just how the process of Judicial Review strengthens and promotes democracy in the United States of America. If judicial review did not exist, the chance of gay marriage being passed as legal in many states would not be an action of high possibility.
In the first lines of the article a quote from Reverend Pat Robertson can be read, “I will never vote for anyone for the president of the United States who supports abortion or gay marriage.” This quote is an example of how Judicial Review and the Supreme Court strengthen the feeling of democracy in America. Not many people will vote for somebody who supports Gay Marriage, especially those who are strong believers of Catholicism. However, gay marriage can be considered a basic human right, and the only reason it is not being passed is the belief that it conflicts with the church. America is a Democracy, not a Theocracy, and if Chief Justice decides to make Gay Marriage legal in certain states then it will become legal. This is a benefit of Judicial Review; sometimes the underdog will get what they want.
Another article titled “Court rewrites the law on gay rights” by Jeffrey Toobin shows how Supreme Court as been a benefit to the Gay rights movement. A quote from the article states that, “On September 17, 1998, Houston police, responding to a report of a weapons disturbance, entered an apartment where John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were having sex. The two men were arrested for violating the Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse," which prohibited oral and anal sex.” The question being asked here and that was asked in Supreme Court is whether Texas or any state for that matter has the right to pass laws which hinder mature adult’s rights to sex. The decision was that the two men’s arrest had been overruled and these laws are still under congressional debate today.
The Marbury vs. Madison case changed the United States of America’s outcome so drastically; it is hard to imagine a democratic America without the outcome of that case. I agree with Jackie’s statement that “The judicial branch gives a fairer balance of power with the executive and legislative branches to help protect democracy.” Without the judicial branch, all the power would be given to the President and many laws would have never been passed or denied. The Jim Crow laws might have still been legal if they never entered Supreme Court’s Judicial Review. The outcome of Marbury vs. Madison and the Supreme Court are defiantly two things to be very thankful for when considering our freedom and basic human rights in America.
During his campaign trail Rudolph W. Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, believes that it shouldn't be up to the government to decide upon abortions but up to women. However, he claims he is against abortion and "he has also pledged to appoint the kind of conservative judges who might be expected to rule against abortion." Therefore, his view on abortion is pointless because he cannot make up his mind. There is no 50/50 opinion on a topic as this. He is on the side of several Supreme Court Justices who have voted to limit abortion rights. Mr. Whelan, a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, whom Mr. Giuliani called a model for the kind of justice he would appoint, because Giuliani didn't take the time to express how he felt about abortion and was shaky at taking sides during his forty minute speech last Friday. If I could vote there would be no way that I would vote for Guiliani because he can't make up his mind about anything, including abortion. For example, Rudolph is a former supporter of gun control, however, he recently praised a federal court decision overturning a gun-control law. "The nuances of Mr. Giuliani’s position are already playing out in interesting ways." This article is very similar to the Marbury case as John Marshall and Rudy Giuliani think the same. Both aren't for or against any topic. Marshall ruled the case so it favored both sided and Giuliani is so-so on the topics that he speaks about.
-----------------------------------------
The question is whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to “keep and bear arms.” The Supreme Court has never answered this amendment directly. Recently, three judges have ruled that the answer individual 2 to 1. This would be a very open answer but the Second Amendment protects an individual right as opposed to a collective right. In a 2003 case a wealthy libertarian, Robert A. Levy, brought six plaintiffs as proof who all claimed that they kept handguns at their house for self-defense and non of them never took the weapon outside their house.
-----------------------------------------
Judicial review hinders democratic process in the United States because this is how we find people like Guiliani who cannot make up their mind. There is no 'in between' choice. It's either one or the other. It scares me that this kind of person could possibly be running for president in this country. The benefits of the structure of the judiciary branch of the US government is that it gives the people some hope that they can win a case and that they aren't alone against the powerful government. The limitations of the structure of the judiciary branch of the US government is that federal and state courts constantly have problems through out due to the 12th amendment. This all started with Marbury's case and can be viewed as a negative affect. But it has shaped the judiciary branch and they way people feel about the courts.
Teresa:
If I were a Supreme Court Justice, I would never have sided with the verdicts history because times change and the old aren't always right. Even though, senior folks are always valued more than little children they aren't always correct. It is good to be old and wise but time doesn't stand still. I would always find a way to side with the futuristic way that would make the decision sensible.
Michelle Shed
Block H
AP US History
Marbury v. Madison was a Supreme Court decision of 1803 that created the precedent of judicial review by ruling as unconstitutional part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. In simpler terms, the Supreme Court has the right to label certain issues unconstitutional. This is still true today, and these issues can be anything from abortion to Internet pornography.
Linda Greenhouse's Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Say Doctors May Not Be Punished for Recommending Medical Marijuana exhibits the fact that Supreme court believes that doctors giving marijuana to their patients is constitutional. According to the article, the Supreme Court ruled that doctors might not be investigated, threatened or punished by federal regulators for recommending marijuana as a medical treatment for their patients. For example, under California’s law, state law enforcement authorities will not prosecute a patient whose doctor has approved or recommended marijuana. Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder believes that the government is seeking to "punish physicians on the basis of the content of doctor-patient communications."
The Supreme Court portrays its authority by allowing marijuana use as a state-by-state law, compared to federal. This is a positive issue because it is stopping the federal government from growing more powerful. However, there is a downside to this. If the Drug Enforcement Administration stops issuing licenses to prescribe drugs in states that allow marijuana for medical purposes, then many clinics and hospitals can be shut down.
Michael Cooper's Giuliani Vexes Audiences With His Abortion Views
Describes Giuliani's belief that although he feels abortions are morally long, it is up to the women to decide, not the government. Interestingly, he stated, "We’re seeking to find judges who understand the very, very important concept that judges exist to interpret the law, not to invent the law." Although he understands conservative judiciary, there are many conservatives in the federal society who disagree with him.
Like Giuliani, Justice Marshall ruled that the duty of the courts was " to say what the law is." It was not the job of the courts to create the law. However, the courts have the right to review the laws.
I agree with what Ashley Aydin said about judiciary review. If it weren't for judiciary review, then nothing would change. We wouldn't have a moderate political group and there wouldn't be a debate between the powers of the state and federal government.
"Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, who cast the sole vote in the Senate against the bill in 1998, said in a statement yesterday that he believed the court's decision vindicated his position. ''Technology has continued to produce better solutions than this law offers,'' he said." That said it all. Internet pornography has been debated since 1998, almost ten years ago. Since then, the software to protect children has been vastly updated to suit todays ever changing technological needs. Unfortunately, our justices do not, nor do our laws.
John Schwartz does an excellent job of turning his article into a piece of Judicial Review. It's works like this that keep the checks and balances, well, in check.
I feel that this law/ruling hindered the democratic process. A new filter for pornography could developed within an hour, I don't see why such a strict ruling is needed. In my opinion our first amendment rights should never be violated in order to 'protect' us.
In turn, I feel that it is our freewill to view such images / videos. Though we are minors, it is not illegal for a minor to use the internet to the fullest extent. Besides, most pornography sites have numerous disclaimers asking for age and denying permission to those who are under eighteen years of age.
Lest we forget, Pornography is an industry and the last time I checked the United States is a capitalist country that thrives on the monetary aspect of the aforementioned industry. By banning such pornographic images we are collectively hindering the economic growth of an industry.
This relates to Mabury Vs. Madison because this issue only pertains to the protection children, as the M vs. M case only pertained to Mabury and his comission.
THE END.
Anam Baig, Block H
Giuliani Vexes Audience With His Abortion Views by Michael Cooper is an article about how Rudy Giuliani puts aside his views on abortion to give more power to the women. However, he wishes to select conservative judges who would oppose abortion. This view is contradictory, but Giuliani remembers that the judges should be the one who interpret the Constitution, not himself. He says, "We’re seeking to find judges who understand the very, very important concept that judges exist to interpret the law, not to invent the law" (Cooper). This statement shows the magnitude of power the judges have in the Supreme Court. Even though they cannot create laws, they can determine whether or not laws can be passed based on their constitutionality.
On the other hand, appointed judges Giuliani knows will have similar viewpoints as he is a way to ensure that his doctrines will be enforced in the Supreme Court. This will allow Giuliani more leeway in the courts if he becomes president. Giuliani sees the significance of Judiciary Review and it seems that he is planning to use it to his advantage if he becomes president. Judiciary Review is when judges have the right to determine the constitutionality of laws. If the judges are in sync with the president’s views, there will most likely be no problems between the executive and the judicial branch that pertain to laws and amendments.
Judiciary Review promotes the democratic process of the United States because it allows judges to deliberate the laws being passed by the executive branch. If the executive branch was passing laws without consequence, it would display the lack of equal distribution of power among the branches of government. This is a benefit of the judicial branch. However, when the president deters the ruling of the Supreme Court, it is a limitation of the democratic power of the United States. If the judiciary branch receives its fair share of power in the government, then the United States can remain democratic, but when its power is limited while the president’s power is extended, it shows how weak democracy can be sometimes. Democracy will be destroyed if the president has all the power.
Short Response to Ashley Aydin:
Your example of freedom of speach for students in school is interesting. I, too, agree that this issue is often overlooked. Why can't the freedom of speech be excersised both in and out of school? It should be an "education mission" for teachers to teach students to become individuals and accept differences. While our school does this, many others limit freedom of speech.
In response to Ashley, I do believe that most students in public schools do have freedom speech so long as their exercise of their freedom does not disrupt the educational process, does not deeply offend other students, and does not endanger the well being of other students and staff. You must realize that the Court must balance a student's right to free speech with the school's responsibility to educate and protect its students. While I agree that their should be free and open debate on controversial issues,there must be limits on what is acceptable speech (including symbolic speech) so that students are sensitive to and respectful of others' opinions and are do not bring on violence, endanger others, or disrupt the educational process as they express their opinions in the name of free speech.
Theresa - E -very solid points, but I'm not convinced that the Warren court would have supported the position that the Supreme Court has the power to override the Constitution, as you suggested morality inclined them to do in several of the case studies you examined. Great question!
Sarah - E+ - your post reflects a clear understanding of the checks and balance system as it was determined in as result of the Marbury case!
Heather - G+ - first and foremost I would genuinely LOVE to see you serve as a Supreme Court justice someday! Your analysis of the articles was strong but in some areas I was looking for some historical/ political facts to support your views.
Jaclyn -G+ - I agree with your critique of Guliani's position, and wonder which view he would more fully endorse if he earns the presidential nomination. Checks and balances were developed for the reasons you described. Clearly, you understand the structue and its intentions.
Ashley - E - youth rights in schools is a complicated issue and one you've brought up in class before. A case called In Re. Gault is most often reffered to on this matter, you should ressearch it if you're interested. Keep asking these important questions!
Welcome Jeff!
Justin - G+ _- you make some excellent points but missed a major point of information last week - the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 made abortion legal on a federal level; states only have jurisdiction in so far as they can set peramaters to shape local abortion procedures. The Marbury decision actually supports the concept of Judicial Review as it permits the Supreme Court to label a law unconstitutional, thus pressuing the legislature to review and revise unjust laws. In response to your idea about a more directly democratic judiciary, do you think people would participate in this process? I only ask because voter turnout for even major elections in the US rarely exceeds 60% of the voting population.
Ms. Horowitz - we always appreciate your support of the blog!
Elizabeth - E - you did a fine job of summarizing the articles and presenting your (accurate) understanding of US government and judicial review.
John - G+ - sharp analysis but one correction - the Chief Justice doesn't get to decide a case. The decision of the court is recorded as the decision of the CJ's court, but he or she does not hold that power independently. Do you think
Jakub - G+ - your analysis was solid but I lost you in a few places. Your opinions on judicial review, for example, are a little unclear to me. Are you saying the courts struggle to represent public opinion? If so, what do you think would make the structre more democratic?
Michele - E- your reflections do an excellent job of explaining and analyzing Judicial Review.
Liana - G+ - you make a fine case for internet filters being violations of the first amendment. How would you respond to folks like Theresa who argue children need to be protected from potentially dangerous images?
Anam - E - another CSI student defending free speech using the Bill of Rights as her evidence - fantastic! I'm wondering if how you would respond to the opinions of CSI students who have complained that their freedoms of expression are limited at school?
Marco Muniz
AP us history blog post
Supreme Court Case Study
“Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Say Doctors May Not Be Punished for Recommending Medical Marijuana”, by Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times, is about the debates surrounding medical marijuana, internet pornography blocked from children, bribery statute and searches without reasonable suspicion at the border. The Bush administration, like the Clinton administration in the past, claims doctors who issue medical marijuana are punishable by the federal government. Though, many states have laws that list medical marijuana legal. After much debate, the Supreme Court decided nobody affiliated with medical marijuana shall be investigated or punished by the federal government. The decision of whether to allow medical marijuana is still in debate though. Moreover, the Supreme Court is debating whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it enacted the federal program bribery statute. The law makes it a federal crime to give a bribe of at least $5,000 to a state or local official if the official's government agency receives more than $10,000 a year from the federal government. The law does not require federal prosecutors to prove any connection between the offense and the federal money, other than its existence. In the Sadri vs. United States case, the federal court in Minneapolis declared the law unconstitutional and therefore dismissed the indictment. Also, Congress is attempting to block internet pornography access to children, ages 0-17. There have been many problems with this though. The acts suggested went against the Bill of Rights and the constitution, as the definition of minors and community standards were imprecise. There is also a debate whether or not a customs officer can disassemble and search a vehicles fuel tank without reasonable suspicion.
“Giuliani Vexes Audiences With His Abortion Views”, by Michael Cooper of the new York Times, is about Giuliani’s mixed messages to the people. He believes abortion is wrong, but believes the decision to have an abortion should be a woman’s choice and not the government’s. He is going to appoint conservative judges who are expected to be against abortion. This has confused the public. Some feel disappointed Giuliani doesn’t clarify his mixed messages.
The articles “Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Say Doctors May Not Be Punished for Recommending Medical Marijuana”, by Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times and “Giuliani Vexes Audiences With His Abortion Views”, by Michael Cooper of the new York Times definitely connects with the Marbury case in 1803. Like the Marbury case, all of the issues are being debated whether they’re constitutional or not. The Supreme Court decided Section 13, allows the court to authorize mandamus which is a higher court making lower courts or government officials to do their jobs correctly, of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional to begin with, and thus, the Supreme Court couldn’t make Madison deliver the commission. Likewise, the Internet Pornography acts, acts that will prohibit children from viewing internet pornography, have not been passed, as the acts were viewed unconstitutional. This is because the act’s broad definitions of children would violate the first amendment. In the acts, the definition of a minor, from birth to age 17, is too imprecise, and therefore it doesn’t follow the first amendment which requires narrow tailoring for restrictions on expression.
Judicial Review promotes the democratic process, as courts need to have the power to review the actions of public sector bodies in terms of their lawfulness, or to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself. This makes government officials follow the constitution better.
The Structure of the Judiciary Branch has its benefits and limitations. For one, the many specific courts in the structure allow for a superior handling of the case at hand, as the judges at these courts will know their subject matter the best. For example, a judge at the United States Tax Court should know more about tax than a judge in the United States Court of International Trade. The Structure also allows for courts to check one another for errors. For example, the Courts of Appeals review decisions of trial courts for errors of law. However, the structure does have its limitations. For one, taking a case to the Supreme Court takes much too long, as the case needs to go though many courts before reaching the Supreme Court.
Comment on another student
“In current events, it seems as if judicial review has not died out after the Marbury versus Madison case,” states Teresa Konopka. “If anything, the constitution is being dissected more now than it ever was” The constitution is going to be dissected more as time progresses, since more issues going against the constitution will emerge. As history proves, this usually means the constitution needs to be reinterpreted to allow the issue to be deemed constitutional.
Dominique D. Johnson
Block H. AP U.S. history
“Giuliani Vexes Audiences with his Abortion Views” by Michael Cooper described the views of presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani’s views of abortion. Although he believed that abortions is wrong, he still believed that whether one decides to get an abortion or not is a chose made by the individual rather by the government. However, his personal belief perhaps will not be in favor of the conservative judges of the judiciary reviews. The public’s response to Giuliani’s views was questionable since he sent mixed views o abortion rights as well as the strict gun-control law. The people want to know what or who is the real Rudy Giuliani. Some of the debaters are seeking to limit the rights of abortions rather than eliminate the rights for abortion. Other debaters are not satisfied with the limitations of rights for abortions. Others want to create a law that states abortions are illegal. Nevertheless, the question of whether our rights for freedom choice is violated or should be limited is also debated. The debate on whether the decision should be a pro-choice decision or state decision has been a leading issue, indecisive the U.S. government as well as the Australian government. The judiciary review hinders the democratic process of making a decision based on the case study of abortion rights because of the personal views of abortion, rather than the rights for freedom of choice in a democracy. Basically the legislatures’ personal belief on abortion influences their decision making on the rights for pro-choice.
“Does the Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate” by Adam Liptak is about the recent studies that showed that executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, 3 out of 18 murders have been prevented. Still, it seems hypercritical since we are murdering inmates by using the death penalty. Although I believe in justified punishment, I don’t believe that justified punishment is execution. Who are we to decide that one should live or not? There are many ways to be executed and one way is by lethal injection, which was adopted from the Nazi’s experiments. We criticized how the Nazi’s punishment/experiments were cruel, yet we use one of their popular experiments as just one of the forms of execution. One professor from Stanford believed that “Capital punishment may well save lives. Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.” Justice Potter Stewart wrote that “the death penalty undoubtedly is a significant deterrent.” The Supreme Court has now imposed a moratorium on executions as it considers how to assess the constitutionality of lethal injections. The decision in that case, which is expected next year, will be much narrower than the one in 1976. But the studies have started to reshape the debate over capital punishment and to influence prominent legal scholars.
In Response to Sarah B:
I absolutely agree with your statement that “law makers can act like monarchs and pass laws which are not in the interest of the country or state”. This is true with some laws such as abortion rights. Based on their personal stance towards a topic, lawmakers create laws that may not benefit or seem fair to the rest of the country.
Marco - G: Thorough and detailed- make an effort to post on time.
Dominique- G: Solid sumamries and analysis. Would be a G+ if not late.
Post a Comment