judicial restraint� to interpret the US Constitution
*** Meese articulates a way for those who support �judicial restraint� to interpret the US Constitution.
*** Brennan articulates a way for those who support �judicial activism� to interpret the Constitution.
Step 2 — Please read the brief summary of these arguments in the PDF entitled, �OriginalIntent v EvolvingConst summary.� It�s just a couple pages.
Step 3 — Please write an reaction essay that argues whether you agree more with Meese or Brennan, and WHY. Be sure to also explain why you DISAGREE with the other side.
*** If, in your initial Week 4 essay(order #1112933) you came down on the side of judicial restraint, then explain whether Meese�s recommendation works for you AND WHY.
*** If, in your initial Week 4 essay(,order #1112933) you came down on the side of judicial activism, then explain whether Brennan�s recommendation works for you AND WHY.
also consider comments from the professor below regarding order #1112933:
point one : 4th paragraph. Very unclear. Wasn’t sure what you wree saying here. Further, you argue that judicial activism doesn’t recognize the limits of power. But it does. Supreme Court
decisions that limit the power of the police to obtain evidence, or the power of the federal government to hold people without trial, are examples of judicially active decisions.
point 2: 5th paragraph. What is inclusive training?
point 3: You refer to DC v. Heller in your last paragraph. You say it is an example of judicial restraint. But couldn’t one argue that it was judicial activism on behalf of conservative judges?
Elected officials in DC regulated handguns, operating in an area of the Constitution where the language is vague. Shouldn’t the appropriate judicial restraint decision be for the courts defer to
elected officials? This court did the opposite and took the power away from elected officials. How do you respond to that?
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂