Justification And Weaknesses Of Non

Justification And Weaknesses Of Non-Interpretive Essay Justification 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 be resolved. Should only the explicit commands of our nations Founding Fathers be referenced in courts of law, or can it be justified that an outside body should extrapolate from the specific text of the Constitution to define and defend additional fundamental rights? 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? 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 question of how the non-interpretative model can be justified must be answered. Despite much remaining confusion between the two models, it is clear that history has chosen the non-interpretative model without which many of the defining points in our nations history would be unjustified. The overwhelming strength of the non-interpretive model is that it has allowed for many fundamental decisions that have served to protect the natural rights of the members of this society. If on the other hand the interpretive model is to be accepted, a significant number of decisions must be revoked. Briefly, the majority of the due process clause is no longer justified. Fair criminal and civil procedures must be dismantled since they have no specific textual reference in the Constitution. Freedom of speech, religion, and property rights are all called in question. Also affected is the legitimacy of franchise and legislative apportionment bodies of doctrine. The equal protection clause of the Constitution when read literally outlines the defense of some forms of racial discrimination. However, it does not immediately guarantee the right to vote, eligibility for office, or the right to serve on a jury. Additionally, the clause does not suggest that equal-facility segregation is not to be allowed. Finally, the freedom from cruel and unusual punishments as outlined in the eighth amendment loses its flexibility. In this manner, a prima facie argument against the interpretive model is evident. Without the ability to move beyond the specific wording, the Court loses its authority to protect what society values as basic human rights. A fundamental question relevant to this debate is whether or not values within our society are time-enduring or changing. When the Supreme Court makes a controversial decision, does it use the text of the Constitution to legitimize principles of natural law, social norms and arrangements? Or, is it acting as an interpreter of slowly changing values and imposing its views on society through its decisions? The Constitution is not a stagnant document; it is very much alive and changing with the times. 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. However, in many cases, the amendment process is inadequate for clarification of issues of human rights. 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. Non-interpretation then requires the application of understood codes, yet the decision-making process is far from mechanical. Critics contest that the Court should not have the ability to interpret societal values in a given period of time. However, as has been shown, history has upheld this tradition. A number of questions now arise. Is it practically wise to place the responsibility to define and protect human rights in the hands of Supreme Court Justices? The answer lies in ones interpretation of history. 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. Following, is the definition and enforcement of human rights a judicial task? 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. While there is no direct statement regarding judicial review in the Constitution, Marbury v. .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 , .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 .postImageUrl , .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 , .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8:hover , .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8:visited , .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8:active { border:0!important; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8:active , .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8 .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ufa02ba4f77bda687e5fe00e37a6345c8:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Soldiers Of Destruction By Charles W. Sydnor, Jr: Eicke’S Cultivation Of Elitism Essay Madison is referenced here as the greatest of all cases justifying this judicial power. Thus arises the penultimate question of the authority of the Supreme Court. Constitutional adjudication was allowed for implicitly by the Founding Fathers. Only some of the principles of higher law were written down in the original document; however, the distinction between those .