Question

Compare judicial activism with judicial restraint, including how each philosophy interprets the Constitution. Explain at least one example of each.

Answer 1

Answer:Honors American government exam

1. convince people that the constitution contained safeguards against government becoming too strong.

2. It guaranteed certain freedoms and rights...

3.the bulk of powe....

4. lockes social contract

5. congress can use its power to investigate to oversee....

6. The president would receive...

7.the size and workload...

8.it expanded the power....

9. isolationism

10. the winner of the popular vote would win the ..

11. to outline the system of checks and balances among the three branches the supreme court declares a law unconstitutional

12. The establishment clause

13. with fewer members each senator has proportionally more impact and the senate has more power...

14. appointed judges are not swayed by public opinion

15. federal courts have exclusive...

16. when there is a criminal trial

17. the court would make decisions that favored corportations...

18. the preamble

19. to promote health, to promote morals, to promote safety

20. the protection from unreasonable..

21. A trial could be too speedy if the defendant does not have adequate time ... could be too public if spectators try to ..

could be too public if media coverage..

22. Affirmative action helps create a diverse group of public leader.s...

23. per hernandez v texas

24. A contains title ix which outlaws...

25. criminal law regulates citizens behavior....

26. parole

27. defining crimes and ...

28. by maintaining employment, price ...

29. socialist government work to guarantee the public...

30. they both increased the public debt

31-35 good lucky hopefully you have more time to write then i did.. good luck champ

100% correct

Explanation:

Answer 2

Both terms refer to the concept of judicial review and are important for the analysis of the United States constitution. Judicial activism philosophy stands for the idea that the constitution must be interpreted in such a way that it includes personal opinions and biases on what the articles of the constitution actually mean and stand for and not just what is explicitly written. For example, in the constitution it says that according to the first ammendment there is a right to free speech. However, thanks to judicial activism we have an understanding of Hate Speech which doesn't fall within the domain of free speech. If we restrained on it then hate speech would be allowed according to the first amendment.

Judicial restraint is important because some justices believe that we should only apply what is strictly said in the constitution and there should be no personal opinions. For example, the second amendment gives people right to bear arms. Those who defend it claim that all weapons, even modern ones fall within the domain of it since arms means weaponry, so people should be according to this be allowed to have automatic rifles for example since it falls into the domain of arms.