The Constitution textually defined only a portion of these and left the outline of those remaining to be defined and protected by an undeclared institution. The Marshall Court is a prime example of the manner by which the Supreme Court would act as the enforcer of both written and unwritten natural rights.
While free essays can be traced by Turnitin plagiarism detection programour custom written papers will pass any plagiarism test, guaranteed. The Court now becomes an arbiter of fundamental value choices, and if these are defined by the Constitution, the Court need not intervene.
The Founding Fathers had no intention of declaring every human right; rather, they created a system by which future generations could modify existing legislation in the context of contemporary codes. Freedom of speech, religion, and property rights are all called in question. While criticisms as to the justification of the power of the Court to discern the values of contemporary society are legitimate, history as well as the citizens of this society have long declared the non-interpretive model superior.
However, as has been shown, history has upheld this tradition. However, the 14th amendment and the due process clause further allow for such interpretation.
The non-interpretive model allows the Court to interpret beyond the exact wording of the Constitution to define and protect the values of a society. The simple fact is that the interpretive model cannot allow for the justification of many of our most sacred rights.
Critics argue that the amendment process was created to allow change and that the role of the Judiciary does not include the power to change stated commands in addition to that of enforcing them. Madison is a weak grounds for the non-interpretive model.
Madison is referenced here as the greatest of all cases justifying this judicial power. Hence, the Constitution itself is inadequate if read in the interpretative model, for it says nothing of many of the rights American society values as indispensable. Without the ability to move beyond the specific wording, the Court loses its authority to protect what society values as basic human rights.
If on the other hand the interpretive model is to be accepted, a significant number of decisions must be revoked. The Constitution is not a stagnant document; it is very much alive and changing with the times.
The outcomes of many Supreme Court cases have exhibited the biases of the judges deciding the case. Thirdly and most importantly, advocates of the interpretive model argue that the Supreme Court is not an unbiased institution and should not have the power to define the present values of American society.
Without which the rights of the citizens of this society would be far less secure and well defined. Critics contest that the Court should not have the ability to interpret societal values in a given period of time. Further, if this body, namely the Supreme Court, bases its decisions of constitutional relevance not wholly on exact interpretation, then regardless of reason, are they wholly illegitimate?
Additionally, the clause does not suggest that equal-facility segregation is not to be allowed. Yet, it matters less how these rights come about if the majority of society recognizes them as fundamental to a functioning democracy.
A number of questions now arise. This is perhaps the most difficult of criticisms to the non-interpretive model. A great virtue of the non-interpretive model is that the Court has the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation that allows for the Court to preserve the rights of the people.
While it is true that the Court has made decisions that reflect its own biases and interests, it can be shown that the Court has also consistently acted to secure the rights of citizens and to limit federal and state powers.
Finally, the freedom from cruel and unusual punishments as outlined in the eighth amendment loses its flexibility.
The adjudication of the Supreme Court over issues of human rights as opposed to this power residing in other branches of government must be answered. The question of how the non-interpretative model can be justified must be answered.
Only some of the principles of higher law were written down in the original document; however, the distinction between those laws protecting natural rights and positive law was a well-understood one. The non-interpretive model allows the Court to interpret beyond the exact wording of the Constitution to define and protect the values of a society.
Continuing through the twentieth century, unwritten rights were upheld allowing for the advancement of laissez-faire capitalism and restraining the powers of state governments against impinging on the natural rights of its citizens. The question of how the non-interpretative model can be justified must be answered.
Freedom of speech, religion, and property rights are all called in question. If you need a custom essay on Politics: Briefly, the majority of the due process clause is no longer justified. Further, if this body, namely the Supreme Court, bases its decisions of constitutional relevance not wholly on exact interpretation, then regardless of reason, are they wholly illegitimate?
Hence, the Court has invoked the generality of the Constitution to define and defend vested rights and general principles of democratic society.Unlike most editing & proofreading services, we edit for everything: grammar, spelling, punctuation, idea flow, sentence structure, & more.
Get started now! Justification and Weaknesses of the Non-Interpretive Model essaysJustification and Weaknesses of the Non-Interpretive Model Brief: Justification and Weaknesses of the Non-Interpretive Model The question of Constitutional interpretation still has yet to should extrapolate from the specific text of the Constitution to define.
The authors also add interpretive comments. Texas Constitution researchers, then and now, find this publication an invaluable resource.
In the foreword, James F. Ray, director of the Texas Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, states that the principal reason for the publication was to make the information available to the public.
interpretive paradigm. Justification for Adopting the Interpretive Paradigm The research will be based on the interpretive paradigm, which advocates from a theoretical viewpoint the study of a research participants experiences which are taken at face value.
Behaviours that stem from the experiences help describe reality. An Analysis of the Justification and Weaknesses of the Non-Interpretive Model of the Constitution ( words, 3 pages) Brief Justification and Weaknesses of the Non-Interpretive ModelThe question of Constitutional interpretation still has yet to be resolved.
CHAPTER 4 Research Methodology and Design Introduction (non-realism), behaviourism, empiricism, and cognitive science. Although positivistic. Chapter 4: Research methodology and design need to put analysis in context. The interpretive paradigm is concerned with.Download